-
Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.
A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai
For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."
The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!
-Ferishta, 1560–1620 -
The hard thing about this is exactly what Yasir Qadhi points out. The question is moot. Everyone has the "right" to do as they please, God has given then that choice in this life; but that right is not devoid of consequences in the here and now and the hereafter. Its an issue as Roshina and I have vigorously debated, of what God has defined as his limits. Its no different than the personal right to do zina if one wishes. Certainly... we have that choice... but one must then admit that no matter how one bends the law the law has been bent. By that same token, refer to our debates regarding what the actual questoin should have been which is: Under Islamic Jurisprudence... should Muslim women be allowed to marry non Muslim men?Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post"2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote -
A very emotional debate overall. I guess that happens when you have a feminist on the panel trying to voice her personal agendas and injustices while throwing the same analysis onto the opposition. You always either have an Arab or an Iranian advancing their argument in favour of women's oppression in Islam based on their own mish mashed interpretation and clashing of culture and religion. Nonetheless, a simple fact as women choosing a partner, conferring the good and bad with her family and coming to a decision wasn't mentioned. This is the same process by which men take a lead in their life decisions, so why not women? While I would have voted for the opposition, I wholeheartedly agree with the woman from Mauritius who boldly said that the majority of women (educated and of age) are underestimated in terms of decision making and her succumbing to her desires. Needless to say, many women seek to speak a common language in marriage, not only in terms of linguistics, but a common foundation in faith, culture and ideals. It's quite easy to point out the statistics that illustrate forced and failed marriages because of not giving women the choice, but what of statistics of failed marriages of women who have made the choice? Do they not suggest anything? It could have been a lot more powerful if established facts like womens rights weren't conversed to that extent. As Yasir Qadhi said, the motion was a broad one which resulted in the commonly asked question of inter faith marriages.
On a lighter note, I was amused by Nomani's emotional arguments. And her colleagues indecisiveness as to which end of the panel he should have been seated on. I can probably guess where Aunt Nomani is headed next.Comment
-
Muslim women should be able to marry any muslim from anywhere, however i dont know why they were suggesting that they should be able to marry non muslims aswell. thats totally against islamComment
-
Great debate. Thanx for sharing. Muslim women even dont have the choice to choose their life partners and cant decide for themselves for the most intimate thing of their lives. This is because of religion or cultures mixed with religion and society.
They are saying that once you call yourself Muslim then you are a slave and you have to submit to every reasonable or unreasonable thing. What a strange argument. Once you are Muslim then you have to submit to the dictates of all including Mullas, monorchs, parents, society and religion. Even if its the matter of your whole life you have to submit. This way people will abhor calling themselves Muslims otherwise its tentamount to being a slave.But this argument that there is no compulsion in religion really gives you all the freedoms.
However such debates are useful and is breaking the stagnancy of the past 1400 years. I have seen that Qatar like Turkey can become a model Muslim state. the only problem is that there still we have the dictatorship and monorchy of the dark ages other wise its a very modern and fastly developing country.Comment
-
This has been discussed before. Are women free to marry anyone they choose? Of course they are. Can women AND MEN marry someone of another religion IN ISLAM? The answer is NO. Are they still Muslims if they do? That's for them (in this life) and god to decide as it is nobody else business. What was disingenuous is the pseudo-emotional appeal of nomani essentially portraying that muslim women are stopped from following their hearts because of izlaam, and that their love could never be a muslim man because hers wasn't.Comment
-
If they do they will be still Muslim in the religious sense but not the slaves of the dictates of Mullas. Lets at least give freedom to women in the decision which is for the whole life. Its not to choose a piece of cloth but a life long partner.Comment
Tweet
Comment