Marriage to conquerers!

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Hi everyone,

Can anyone answer me, what woman or man for that matter wants to be married to the conquerers of her/his nation? Why on earth would a woman desire to be the spouse of the murders of her brothers/fathers/sons? I don’t think any of my relatives would go willingly, as a matter of fact it could be considered a form of torture, not to mention rape. This woman who has suffered so much loss now has to be perpetually raped by her conquerers and there is no one to save her.

Can this truly be considered watching out for a person? I would think it better for a widow to be able to run far away from her conquerers. If the object is to truly watch out for the widow, why not provide for her financial needs wtihout forcing her to become a trophey of conquest. And, give her room to mourn the loss of her loved ones? Why do some religions allow the conquerers to satisfy their sexual desires rather than taking care of the destitute? Is it not right to question any faith in which the leader/s advocate such actions. Granted every religion has followers who practice such travisty but few founders of religion advocate such an assult.

Peace

2

*** …what woman or man for that matter wants to be married to the conquerers of her/his nation?***

Any woman whose status was
THIS in her country before it was conquered!

3

Hi Corrupt Angel,

I'm not asking for a heady argument about theory about how women were treated. Would your mom or sister or any of your relatives appreciate being forced to marry and have sex with the men responsible for you and your father's deaths.

And what did they gain, assuming that your refering to the Muslim conquerers. They were forced to be heavily veiled and they essentialy have no worth in comparison to men. Not much gain that I can see. And not to mention the part in the quran that says that a man can beat his wife if she is disobediant. So if she does not read her Quran she can be beaten till she submitts. Never mind this is not her faith.

"As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, beat them..." Surah 4:34

How much does her word count? Basically none as stated here:
"… And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (superiority) over them" Surah 2:228

She is considered unclean by the Muslim faith
"If a Muslim man touches' a woman (even his wife) before praying, he is consider unclean for prayer". Surah 4:43

Women are lacking in mind and religion:
"have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than women" Al Bukhary vol. 2:541

So your point was?

4

Lyrix, so what would you have them do? Not marry the conquering forces? And do what? Since her father, brother and sons have been killed in battle, what do these women do? Live their life like spinsters and prostitutes or lead a life of respect with another man? At least after having married the conquerers she gets a status as a wife, as belonging to a household with a family name, otherwise what?

How would you propose that these women should live? Should they not marry? Shouldn’t a Muslim take on the responsibility of a woman left alone in the world due to war? Shouldn’t she be allowed to lead her life anew? Or would you rather she rot away alone and old? After mariage at least she can have other children and sons…

Since you mention these verses and Ahadith Lyrix, you should also be interested in the Hadith in which the Holy Prophet :saw: said: "“The believer who has the most perfect faith is the one whose behaviour is best, and the best of you are the ones who are best to their women.”

or

“Many women have visited the family of Muhammad, complaining about their husbands. Verily those are not the best among you.”

or

“No believing man should hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her characteristics, there will be others that do please him.” (Muslim)

or

“Treat women kindly, for woman was created from a rib. The part of it that is most bent is the top. If you try to straighten it you will break it, and if you leave it alone it will remain bent. So treat women kindly.” (Bukhari and Muslim)

And the Quran:

**“. . . live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (Qur’an 4:19) **

The verses you mention are ensure that women do not take undue advantage of men…While Muslim men have been told to be just and kind to the woman, such harsh restrictions have not been put on the women…

And what kind of women are to be dealt with in which we have to admonish them? If they have ill-conduct, lewdness or malevolence…Even then, in another ahadith we are told to hit them lightly and never on the face…Unlike some ‘civilized’ nations where women are abused day and night…

There are no chastity belts in Islam, there is no distinction between man and women in Islam, if a law is written for the woman, an equal or weightier law is perscribed for the man…

Women in Islam are not referred to as biatches or hoes, they have great esteem granted to them in this faith…

She is not considered unclean, rather a restriction has been placed on man so that before he presents himself in front of his Lord, he should not have thoughts of sex on his mind, that is why before prayers men are not to touch their wives…

5

Sorry I am not meaning to be condescending, but I don't think anyone can buy that argument when you truly look at what the Quran teaches about women. If you think they were better off, fine. But to convince me they were better off you have to prove these Surahs do not exist. And since the Quran has not been changed over time. They could not have been added by accident.

How can you honestly tell me that you think a woman is better off now after her country is conquered.

Let me tell you the most probable scenario I see of men that are conquering a nation and the women in that nation.

A) All the men in her life are dead(she is in mourning).
B) She has no say in the society because women's word does not count.(according to the Quran)
C) Some man who was in the conquering party thinks she is pretty.(He can marry her for sake of religion)
D) Forces her to marry.

E) Does not matter if she disagrees because, as is stated in the Quran a woman's word is not worth as much as a man.
F) She finds herself married to this foreigner of a different religion.could you think that a woman is better off now.
G) She is morning her brothers, fathers, sons.
H) She resists having sex with her captor. (She is frightened)
I) Her capter beats her as he is admonished to do in the Quran for disobediance.
J) She consents to the rape, or maybe not. (And if she did not, who would listen to her pleas, her word means nothing)
K) Further she is forced to recite Quran, whether she wants to or not.(If she does not she is beaten)
L) Remember there is now no one to defend this woman from her tormenter.
M) She must follow the Quran.

Granting that not every man went about his "duty" this way, the Quran offers no punishment to a man for commiting such torture on a human being. And further more it does not matter if it does because it makes it ok for the man to behave this way. Personally I would think she might be better off dead.

At least in her own society she had her brother and her father alive and she was not forced to take the religion of another, which by the way according to the Jewish faith would have been condemning her to hell, if she was a believing Jew. As like Muslims, they are not allowed to change religion either. And you try to tell me she is better off.

this can be considered none other than societal genocide.

The US government did much the same thing with the Native Americans when we took over this nation. We cut the Indians hair and force them into American schools. And for those of you that don't know, this is how Native Americans show mourning for dead relatives. If they spoke their languages they were beaten. Many were abused by wayward priests sexually and physically in schools they were forced to attend, as some of the women of the conquered nations of Islam must have been. Young children weere taken away from their parents.

No I tell you allowing marriage to conquered nations that way is almost criminal much as the offenses commited by the US. Do you have any idea what the battle cry was for the US then....? "In the name of Christianity" for Petes sake. This was not the teaching of Christ but that was the reasoning children were separated from parents and all these other crimes. But on the other hand the followers of Christ were abusing the religion. I wonder about a religion where the founder starts such practice. And it does not matter if it is Muslim, Hinduism, Christianity, Satanism, Jews etc... I myself simply can not follow someone who can set up such a system that makes it Ok to abuse someone.

Blessings all

6

Sorry Lajawab,

My post was prior to reading your post.

Blessings.

7

Curious, why is it that no one defended any other religion on this practice. Surely there must be other religions that force their religion on other nations by conquering the men of the nation then forcing the women to become followers? Are you telling me that Islam is the only religion that actually condones forcing women, and sets up the means by which to do so, of the captured culture to become followers of the conquering religion.

Hmm isn't that interesting? If anyone knows of any other religions that practice(d) this please, I'm curious.

Crusades don't really count as it is not the teaching of the founder, Jesus. And, the crusades were a response to the invasion by the Moores, spreading Islam by sword.

But I guess if you want go ahead. I'm open for any discussion on the matter.

Lajawab,

If the Muslim faith had not made that person a widow then surely they would not need the service of being married to a Muslim in the first place. Which pretty much nullifys the whole argument about being a spinster right from the get go.

Blessings

8

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lyrixforu: *
Curious, why is it that no one defended any other religion on this practice. Surely there must be other religions that force their religion on other nations by conquering the men of the nation then forcing the women to become followers? Are you telling me that Islam is the only religion that actually condones forcing women, and sets up the means by which to do so, of the captured culture to become followers of the conquering religion.

Hmm isn't that interesting? If anyone knows of any other religions that practice(d) this please, I'm curious.

Crusades don't really count as it is not the teaching of the founder, Jesus. And, the crusades were a response to the invasion by the Moores, spreading Islam by sword.

But I guess if you want go ahead. I'm open for any discussion on the matter.

Lajawab,

If the Muslim faith had not made that person a widow then surely they would not need the service of being married to a Muslim in the first place. Which pretty much nullifys the whole argument about being a spinster right from the get go.

Blessings
[/QUOTE]

Islam never spread by the sword...Jihad was and is carried out in retaliation for any atrocity committed against a Muslim and Jihad apart from being a military repellant is also a form of punishment upon those who perpetrate atrocities on Muslims who want nothing more than to be left in peace...

Failure to be left in peace entitles Muslims to wage war against the disturber of peace so that, that kind of mentality is purged from the world and peace settles once again...

This necessity of marrying the conquerers as you put it, is just for the benefit of the women of the fallen people should a situation arise when Muslims are conquerers...

9

Why can't a woman beat her husband if he is disloyal.

And if her words don't mean as much as a mans, what good does it do if a man is cautioned not to do these things. In a court, her words mean less so she basically has no stand against her husband, if he is a tyrant.

Basically her only hope of having any dignity is if she marries an honorable man.

Can anyone tell me how this works. In a court of law, if everyone does not have equal voice, then what good is it for a person with lesser voice to speak. By definition it seems they have no voice. The only hope they actually have is that they have the ears of an honorable judge.

Here is the theoretical proof for this.

assumptions
1. In a court of law there can only be a boolean response. IE. yeah, neah. yes, no. True, False.

2. A woman's statement is somewhat less than a man, we'll assume 1/2 as it goes with the inheritance rules (if this is not true I'd like to know otherwise)

Ok, so a woman might say "My husband cheats on me."

Couple goes to court.

he says no = 1 * testimony man = 1 * no
she says yes = 1/2 * testimony of man = 1/2 * yes

So it is entirely possible in a system that does not give equal status to every person in the court that the ruling would look as such.

Ruling = (1 * no > 1/2 * yes) No's have it.

Therefore if women are of this status in life what does it matter what the Quran "suggests" men do, as there is no accountability to treat a woman right. He is King.

Granted I am just theorizing at what could happen with rules set up as such. I have no proof positive that this sort of thing happens. I've heard rumors of such things though, so if you know of courts that give equal voice to men and women in a trial I'd like to know under this system.

Anyhow this is the 2000's these are things that happened a long time ago. Things are a little different now.

Blessings

10

Lajawab,

Where is your proof? History seems to tell a different story.

Blessings.

11

It has always been stated that the Conquerers write the history books.

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lyrixforu: *
Why can't a woman beat her husband if he is disloyal.

And if her words don't mean as much as a mans, what good does it do if a man is cautioned not to do these things. In a court, her words mean less so she basically has no stand against her husband, if he is a tyrant.

Basically her only hope of having any dignity is if she marries an honorable man.

Can anyone tell me how this works. In a court of law, if everyone does not have equal voice, then what good is it for a person with lesser voice to speak. By definition it seems they have no voice. The only hope they actually have is that they have the ears of an honorable judge.

Here is the theoretical proof for this.

assumptions
1. In a court of law there can only be a boolean response. IE. yeah, neah. yes, no. True, False.

2. A woman's statement is somewhat less than a man, we'll assume 1/2 as it goes with the inheritance rules (if this is not true I'd like to know otherwise)

Ok, so a woman might say "My husband cheats on me."

Couple goes to court.

he says no = 1 * testimony man = 1 * no
she says yes = 1/2 * testimony of man = 1/2 * yes

So it is entirely possible in a system that does not give equal status to every person in the court that the ruling would look as such.

Ruling = (1 * no > 1/2 * yes) No's have it.

Therefore if women are of this status in life what does it matter what the Quran "suggests" men do, as there is no accountability to treat a woman right. He is King.

Granted I am just theorizing at what could happen with rules set up as such. I have no proof positive that this sort of thing happens. I've heard rumors of such things though, so if you know of courts that give equal voice to men and women in a trial I'd like to know under this system.

Anyhow this is the 2000's these are things that happened a long time ago. Things are a little different now.

Blessings
[/QUOTE]

Well, there is a reason she is not to beat up her husband...In the case that she is smaller than the husband, she is liable to get her butt kicked...:D

But she can take what is known as 'Khulla'...Annulment, I believe is the correct word for it should she be unhappy with her husband for any reason...

And you are confusing two different things together...There is testimony and there is trial...In the case of where a testimony of a woman is required, then there should be 2 female witnesses, but if it is a trial of a man against a woman, then both have equal status in the eyes of Shariah...

As for proof of history of Islamic violence is concerned, as I have suggested to other non-Muslims before you, I suggest you take a course in Islamic history, preferably under a non-Jew teacher...Christian teachers are the best...Take a course, I took it, and trust me, you would be amazed and shocked at the civilization that Muslims had built...

Free health care, free education and Damascus, even free food at times...Muslims and nonMuslims living side by side, the practice of Devshirme where Christian parents pleaded for their sons to made into a Muslim Jannisary...

I was spellbound...Go for it...You will have your proof...

13

Hi

Even the US is guilty of this changing history. When I was in school we did not learn about the atrocitys commited against the Native American peoples because the government had a different story. Fortunately, in this country you can disagree with those in office and eventually the truth came out about for example "The Trail of Tears."

Another example of how the conquerers write history books is that of the Civil War in the US. The North called it the "Civil War". The south called it "The War of Northern Aggression". One must be ever so careful in filtering the source they use and sometimes it is hard because some purposefully change the books to make it work. I can think of a few religions that do this.

Mormons prophecy was that the Temple was originally supposed to be built in Missouri. Why then was it built in Utah. And that there were giant men on the moon. Oh well, their books magically lost these false prophecys through time.

Jehovas Wittnesses claim the number was supposed to be 144,000 people that got into heaven. This number was changed several times as the number of people in the Church rose about 144,000. Finally they gave up on the number allowed into heaven.

There are many people and organizations in this world that, "fix history" so the story is favorable to them.

I know the US isn't perfect and nobody who practices religion here is. But at least if you point out an error in what this country has done I can agree with you and say "Yeah it was stupid what my government/country did." And I don't have to say that you are wrong. Same thing with religion, you can point to many followers of Christ and say "Look, they were so bad." And you know what, I'm going to agree with you. I'm not simply going to try to discredit history because I don't want it to be that way.

Why is it that anytime anybody points out that some Muslims have done some really bad things, everybody goes on the offense. Believe me when you have as many followers as Islam does you are going to have some bad apples and someone some where is going to distort the faith. It makes me wonder about a faith that suggests that nobody anywhere at anytime ever committed any crimes in its name. There is no religion in the world that can make that claim, and keep a straight face. If you believe that you must not be living in the same reality that I am.

Take care

14

Butt kicked :) Lol...

15

Lyrix, when an army moves in the name of Islam, it soldiers are under strict adherence to the rules of engagement under Shariah…Breaking the rules of Shariah in an engagement means it does not remain Jihad anymore but becomes oppression and aggression…And any Muslim who partakes in battle and performs aggression or oppression becomes a ‘Zalimun’ or wrongdoer and should he die in that state, he dies as not as a ‘Shaheed’ or martyr, but as an oppressor…

Everywhere that Muslims went and copnquered the indigenous population was not touched…Like I said, unlike history of other conquering nations and races, Islam was one which outlawed and forbade the practice of genocide or killing the fallen peoples…

You really think the Mughals of India didn’t have enough strength to annihilate every Hindu? If you read the Hindus’ authentic historians you’d find in them history of Mughal benevolence, despite the Mughals not being the perfect candidate for Islamic rule…

You believe the Moors who conquered Spain, or other generals who conquerd Africa didn’t have the ability, manpower and strength to annihilate their local populace?

So how come despite so many surviving humans under Muslim victories and conquests, not one instance of atrocity arises?

The most you’d hear from are the Indian Hindus, who have so much hate for Muslims that they fabricate stuff and put it on their websites…Go to Hindutva and hinduunity and you’ll be looking straight into the face of unadulterated hatred…They write horrendous things about Muslims, people they lived with for a thousand years in peace, and yet roll at the feet of the British who massacred them in the thousands…

It is we, the Muslims who are hated Lyrix, we never hate anyone…Why are we hated? Because we practice the Law, the Law of Allah :swt:, and there is no mark of honour more than to be hated by the Kuffar for believing in Allah :swt:…Why? Because every Prophet was too…

Anyways, this fixing history is no part of Islam, in fact history plays little part in it…Islam doesn;t believe in showing a good face…It is the Law of Allah :swt: and will always have haters, nothing new about it…

16

Ok, So in court she is equal. But what about the community. If a man is worth 2 women he can get away with a lot of garbage that a woman can not.

Does what you say abou the court also apply in testifying to the police? If a man is drunk and a woman catches him. Are you telling me that she has to find 1 more woman to prove it. But if he finds her drunk he only needs to say so? Assuming public drunkeness is a crime(is this true)

Considering the men I have known in my life and the women I am amazed at this, woman = 1/2 man. Men are at least as bad if not worse than most women. They generally committ more atrocitys and on a grander scale against human kind women and children. Look at Hitler, Gingus Kan, Emperors in Japan, rape of Nanking. Rape in Kosovo. Genocide by Stalin. Fighting in boys. Wars, how many women have started wars? And we are supposed to believe that women are less than men. I think it is probably the other way around. How many women beat there children or rape their sons. Yes I know the numbers are there but they are significantly smaller. And don't even get me started on child abuse. Why is it that when little johny is taken to the hospital again and again for "falling down the stairs" it is Daddy that is in a rage. Yes I know some women committ these crimes too. but their numbers are few.

No I think the only reason women are 1/2 man is that man being the larger of the two genders has exerted his dominance, albeit unfairly for this is not how true men act.

A true man is a leader in his house. He has bigger ears than the rest of his family, therefore he needs to listen more. He is the strongest, so he should use his strength sparingly. And the real reason for him to be powerful is to protect his family from attackers, not to punish his wife and family. These are acts of playground bullies, not leaders of a family. Unfortunately these "false" views of manhood are a worldwide problem. Christians and Jews alike believe that because they are stronger, "by God this is my house, If you do not like it get out." A real man leads by example not by force, unfortunately we men have screwed this up in every country that we are the rulers in. He is counselor, guardian, provider, protector, consoler of sad hearts, friend, and corrector. He should resort to strength to solve his problems as a last resort. And never as a means of correcting his wife, for she is human and is entitiled to her beliefs too. Gentlemen, a man can always try to convince her she is wrong, but to beat her because she disagrees with you is anything but manly.

The list goes on. But when you look at women, they are more even tempered than there men conterparts. How many women do you know have ever raped a man let alone thought of it.

Peace all

17

Hi Lajawab,

Quote:

And any Muslim who partakes in battle and performs aggression or oppression becomes a 'Zalimun' or wrongdoer and should he die in that state, he dies as not as a 'Shaheed' or martyr, but as an oppressor...

One problem I can see with this logic, It assumes that everyone in the army is a devote Muslim.

In Christianity there are many variations, some claim to believe, some don't and you can see the proof of their belief in the way they live their lives, some claim to believe but at home are beating their wives and children(not acceptable for a Christian). Some are closet alcoholics. Others claim and you can see the fruit in their life. Others deny it altogether. But if I'm not mistaken, the one diffenence from Christians and Muslims is that if you don't believe or question as a Christian it is OK. But from citings I have read and things in the Quran if you are a Muslim and don't believe it is not Ok and you may even pay a price for stating you don't. So if someone does not believe the Quran but lives in an Islamic state it is highly unlikely that they would let it be known that they do not believe. Considering the state of human kind I am sure you go to the Mosque with fellow Muslims that are in this state. Just as I have probably been to a Church with un-believing Christians.

And here is where things get messy. So now you have this non-believing Muslim, empowered with the gifts of Muslim man, which if he were believing he would care about whether or not he is an oppressor. But since he is not he can use all the good things about being a Muslim to gain the upper hand over his new conquered mate and not worry about the consequences. Of course he has to go to the Mosque and do things to make it appear like he is a believing Muslim otherwise his countrymen would know of his true self. But in his home he is Ruler. And since his word means more than hers he can do basically anything but she has no ground to stand on.

The nature of humans is such that this is all too likely. It does not matter if it is India, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, US. It is Possible. Some US soldiers have comitted rapes and war crimes against the people we were supposed to be protecting in wars past, and regretably this will probably happen in the future. I would beg that this is not the general state of our military because we are not raised to be women haters or to hate other cultures. But some of us here in the good old US of A are bad apples. And some of us are hardened criminals. Some don't get found out about for years like some serial killers but none the less the military is only a representation of the general public as its masses come from the general public. Which must be the case of any military, the soldiers come from the general public. I have heard of and seen repots of very heinous crimes committed against wome and children by Muslim men and communities so I know they are not imune to this phenomenon. But you won't here much about it 'cause they are afraid of the consequences of coming forward with such accusations. If you don't believe it just do a search on "Rape Muslims".

So the rules not only don't stop rape but are helping to hide and protect the perpetraters. 'Cause as I was told a woman's word is worth 1/2 as much as a man's. A side note, seems kind of backward considering he is statistically more likely to rape her and than she is him, and she is more likely to need help. It seems that the gender which is more honorable by nature should be counted twice, not the other way around. But hey that is great for us guys right, we're so infallable? He is supposed to be better than her, right? Funny how the cards are stacked against a woman defending herself, when she is least likely to be the perpetrater.
And not only that, if she does try to defend herself she could be shaming her family or ridiculed.

So anyhow I don't buy your sale of an "Ideal" Islamic Army.

Anyhow sorry to bore you with my drawn out argument and sorry to get slightly off topic. I hope your not pullin' your teeth out in boredom by the end :) But it is all related to my question.

Blessings

18

Gees upon gandering at my last post,

Not really trying to offend. I hope you realize I'm hypothesizing. I know there are very good and honest Muslims. My neighbor was one and I know of others. So I'm not attacking, I guess it's more trying to get the puzzle pieces to fit and form an understanding of why.

Hope this questioning is ok, here. If anybody is really offended just let me know and I will leave, OK? :)

Peace.

19

^^ Nah man…Just tired…I am going to sleep…:yawn: Can’t type anymore…

Don’t worry, some more knowledgable Muslims than me will be here to answer your queries…

Keep em coming…

rehman1, Ibn Sadique, Bao Bihari, Islamabad and a few more will give you very informative and detailed answers…And yeah, none of them are women…:smiley:

Laterz…

20

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Lajawab: *
**And yeah, none of them are women...:D*
[/QUOTE]

flower icon to Lajawab In the past in this Forum, women have contributed to constructive discussions. We are no less intellectual than our Muslim brothers, but perhaps more selective in deciding where to participate :)