Roman....what i said about Jewism and christianity are facts..something everyone knows about. But what people are doing in this forum is judging the laws of islam..which i was talking about. I didnt pass any judgements on jewism or christianity, and i dont intend to either. What i said are plain facts acknowledged by the jews and christians themselves. We just dont have the right to judge a religion..and as muslims, we cant question the laws or their nature, as they have been imposed by Allah (SWT).
Zara...about Asma Jahangir...i mentioned her name in the context of her extreme feminist attitude, which she has developed recently. I used to admire her a lot, when she was fighting for the rights of women, when she was working for women who were being raped, beaten, burnt alive, or sent home for lack of dowry in Pakistan. I admired her attitude then. But then she started to turn her focus towards changing Islamic laws pertaining to women, claiming they were unfair to women, and that times have changed etc. I do not wish to judge her, because for all i know, i could have the same negative characteristics i pointed out in her, but my point is, Islam is one thing we should not be judging in anyway. Trying to understand it is one thing, but trying to judge it, and then manipulate it such that it goes alongwith our 'demands' is unacceptable.
Akif: "Trying to understand it is one thing, but trying to judge it, and then manipulate it such that it goes along with our 'demands' is unacceptable."
The Qur'an is static, immutable. Its words cannot be changed. But the message of the Qur'an is flexible. Its a message is relevant for all times and all ages. It's a message which has been in the past and can continue to be re-interpreted. Early Islamic theologians and lawmakers interpreted the Qur'an and Hadith. Laws pertaining to Islam were a product of their 'human' interpretations. Buts what to say that there interpretations are any more or less relevant that the interpretations of Islamic scholars today. Scholars of the past were not Gods, there interpretations should be no less or more important than the interpretations of scholars today.
'Manipulate' is not a good word, a better word would be 'reformed'. Allah has granted humans the right to Ijtehad. This right is no longer put in practice, we rather opt for medieval interpretations of our scriptures. Most great Islamic thinkers were reformists - from Ghazali to Iqbal. They practiced Ijtehad to its fullest extent. Notions like slavery, * muta * (temporary marriage) have been re-examined over the years and even discarded by some scholars. Reform doesn't necessarily have to consist of discarding, it can also consist of reconstituting past practices which have been forgotten or new interpretations which help us deal with challenges we fact today (i.e. environmental crisis, genetic engineering, aids, etc.). Polygamy may be one issue which requires some reform - because times have changed and rather than allowing a practice which may produce injustice - it would be in the interest of Muslims to place some explicit caveats on its practice (as prescribed in the Qur'an).
Achtung ;)
Achtung,
You have explained that really well, I agree with you. What happened to you when you went to Pakistan or were you this smart when you left? But seriously, did the experience change your outlook on religion at all?
Zara
But Akif...
Permission of four marriages in Islam is also a matter of fact. Isn't it? Muslim and non-muslims both acknowledge the 'fact' that four marriages are allowed in Islam. Any discussion regarding a material fact cannot be restricted to specific audience, as long as that discussion is not offensive or indecent in nature.
Saying prayer five times a day or fasting during Ramazan are practices that are based purely on faith and belief and hence are subjective matters. No one should be judged based on such practices or beliefs since they vary from person to person. However, a law which applies to a society as a whole impacts people's lives at a collective level. At such level, it is not a subjective matter anymore. Any such law or rule must be looked at objectively.
Whether or not Islam prescribes the way they have interpreted and implemented laws regarding women in Ifghanistan, matter of the fact is that those laws are implemented that way and women are suffering badly in that society. We cannot simply sit around and say that that's what Islam says so we are going to abide by it.
The very fact that Islamic believes were interepreted that way gives a strong reason for reevaluation and to look at things objectively... things which impact lives of people in a society at a collective level.
Ok here's the deal once and for all short and simple. A man may marry 4 wives at one time, if the previous wife(s) permit it. The prophet was married to the same women for most of his life until she died. After that most of his wives were just b/c they needed someone to help take care of them. what better person then our prophet (S)? It is not a must nor is it forbidden. It is all up to personal preferance. SO whatever you want. thats it.
Let's look at the verse that Camille's posted included again:
"If you fear that it will not be possible to find an equitable solution of the problems of
'Yatama' (widows and orphans in society) otherwise, then marry women of your choice among them, by twos, threes or fours (as the situation demands), but if you fear that you will not do justice, then marry only one.."(4:3)
This is the only time where polygamy is discussed in the Quran, and it is discussed in the context of dealing with an imbalance between numbers of men and women. To me that says that men should have more than one wife only under these circumstances. As others mentioned, those were the circumstances under which the Prophet married multiple wives. So it is not really a matter of choice, but a specific way to combat a specific social problem. If that problem does not exist, there is no reason to combat it. I thought the article Camille posted earlier was very good.
Zara