"Nikah” After “Rukhsati"

[BarakzaiAbdali]

with all due respect, i kind of feel bad for him too. in pakhto, it is humiliating for your wife to simply take off and leave, lol. people in the community would start giving him peighor and calling him things like dawoos.

islam didn't give her a right to just leave him without a reason or a divorce. in fact, she would have earned Allah (swt)'s wrath.
surprsingly, in the cases i have heard of on the news similar to this, the girl usually happened to have her eyes on another guy, hence tempers erupt and the end result is that crimes are committed on the spur of the moment.

The age difference was 20 years or so and she was likely not properly consented.

In general, I do agree with a strict adherence to duties defined by Islam to sustain an orderly social fabric... but that also requires adherence to the law that Muhammad (S) put forth in terms of the virgin female having unlimited right of refusal for all suitors.

[Azad Khel]

thats total non sense and exageration


Pukhtane do Islamic nekah and i dont know about force marriages and selling daughters,maybe in your family.never heard of such non sense.

Graveyard of Empires:

There are always two sides to every matter i.e. backend and front end. Shamlawar is talking of backend. You are right that nikah is performed according to Islamic sharia apparently (that is the front end) but in majority cases the consent of the bride and in some cases the consent of the bridegroom is not considered necessary.
The objective of the nikah is the consent of the man and woman and not merely a ceremony, you know.
The nikah in the house of the bridegroom is totally non-sense.
The selling of girls is not a lie. Most of the Pukhtoon from Afghanistan and tribal people of Pakistan do that. In my area here in Karachi, many people from Afghanistan sell their daughters to each others.
Recently, a jarga was held to discuss this issue and it was decided by them that the amount should be reduced to a maximum ceiling of Rs.500,000.
The girl, who is more beautiful, is sold for greater price, which is called “WALWAR” (if I pronounce that correctly).

[Baygham]

I think we may actually agree on something. I am sure all of us here have some tragic story. Just the other day we had news of a girl from our village, in our Barakzaay area, being married to an older man. She went back to her mothers home and her parents decided to ease her back to him gently. The husband became upset, went to the home, asked her to leave with him. She didn't, he pulled out his pistol and shot her right through the head. The death was tragic... however, on a positive justice enforcement note, our male relatives have raised a laskhaar and are hunting him down. So its ever so gently changing.. a generation ago parents would never have allowed the girl to come back home and the men would not have raised a lashkaar to hunt down a killer of a female family member.

Remember, with nonintervention and time, a society autocorrects.

Tragic but quite a routine story. To see a positive in a bullet hole in the forehead must take some effort, I am unfortunately not bestowed with such powers of imagination.

And with nonintervention a society perpetuates (remain in a state of equilibrium), which you are calling auto-corrects (auto-corrects implies go back to a previous state of equilibrium and thus remain the same, such as keep the same principles and form, as in perpetual devine islamic law),

Once a change occurs, you cannot go back, a primate cannot evolve back into an amoeba. So in evolution what you are calling autocorrects (go back to a previous state) cannot happen. Only a state of equilibrium can be sustained. Once that is perturbed(through multiple means, usually external), evolution (ie change) is inevitable, whether phyletic (continuous) or punctuated can be debated and honestly not even relevant at the moment

I consider Evolution more in line with the latter process, i.e. punctuated. Read punctuated equilibrium (in evolution) by Stephen Jay Gould.

[faye]

if there was such a thing as evolution we would be evolving TO apes, not FROM them, whether it be in hiccups or fast forward!!

[Baygham]

if there was such a thing as evolution we would be evolving TO apes, not FROM them, whether it be in hiccups or fast forward!!

I loved the quote by an ex indian cricketer Nijvot singh, "we have descended from apes ........................and are still descending"

applies here

[faye]

I loved the quote by an ex indian cricketer Nijvot singh, "we have descended from apes ........................and are still descending"

applies here

yeah, do you think bonobo are a few steps ahead

[qunduz92]

The age difference was 20 years or so and she was likely not properly consented.

In general, I do agree with a strict adherence to duties defined by Islam to sustain an orderly social fabric... but that also requires adherence to the law that Muhammad (S) put forth in terms of the virgin female having unlimited right of refusal for all suitors.

bibi khadija (ra) and the prophet (saw) you speak of also had around a 20 year difference so the age gap issue is not an islamically legitimate concern.

and there is not an unlimited right of refusal for all suitors. islam emphasizes and encourages marriage as soon as maturity is reached.

if a suitable candidate asks for the hand of a female and he fits all of the islamic criteria, the girl is supposed to accept it.

it is not generally a custom back home for pakhtun girls to be adament in their refusal of a marriage their elders arranged in goodwill. in our culture, they tend to go along with the flow rather than being rebellious and arrogant like people here are. it is considered a matter of shame, for her to go into the details of who she wishes to marry, etc. her silence is considered her consent. i honestly believe the lies about pakhtun men being abusive and repressive are exaggerated by our enemies. contrary to what people allege, farsi-speaking areas such as herat, the north, in afghanistan are the ones where highly abusive marriages predominate. pakhtun men are renowned for their good treatment and protection of their women, who are considered as their namus in pakhtunwali.

so with that said, i dont think we should be encouraging the type of behavior involving running away from one's husband. it is a matter of great shame to both the wife and husband, and runs contrary to our culture of loyalty and integrity.

[Baygham]

bibi khadija (ra) and the prophet (saw) you speak of also had around a 20 year difference so the age gap issue is not an islamically legitimate concern.

and there is not an unlimited right of refusal for all suitors. islam emphasizes and encourages marriage as soon as maturity is reached.

if a suitable candidate asks for the hand of a female and he fits all of the islamic criteria, the girl is supposed to accept it.

it is not generally a custom back home for pakhtun girls to be adament in their refusal of a marriage their elders arranged in goodwill. in our culture, they tend to go along with the flow rather than being rebellious and arrogant like people here are. it is considered a matter of shame, for her to go into the details of who she wishes to marry, etc. her silence is considered her consent. i honestly believe the lies about pakhtun men being abusive and repressive are exaggerated by our enemies. contrary to what people allege, farsi-speaking areas such as herat, the north, in afghanistan are the ones where highly abusive marriages predominate. pakhtun men are renowned for their good treatment and protection of their women, who are considered as their namus in pakhtunwali.

so with that said, i dont think we should be encouraging the type of behavior involving running away from one's husband. it is a matter of great shame to both the wife and husband, and runs contrary to our culture of loyalty and integrity.

Khapa keega ma wrora, but reality is a little bit more ugly. This namus that you talk about is a thinly veiled vehicle of abuse. The example of Khadija is also invalid, first women are never 20 year older in a pakhtun marriege, its more like the 50+ year old Muhammad with a teenage aaysha, would be more of appropriate example. Such things for an modern person are a touch outdated.

So untill you yourself are OK with a 20 year older women for yourself dont wish it on non consenting pashtoon women and call it, izaath, wafa, namus and other idiotic terms to serve your purpose. dont you have these things when your life partner is concerned?

[Baygham]

yeah, do you think bonobo are a few steps ahead

I am not too enthused with the idea of incessantly having sex with mother, wife, neighbor, friend and foe to calm my anxieties(bonobo behavior) and to make it somehow more noble because it is less violent.

Its subhuman behavior and has no place in human evolution. Like I said somewhere else, in evolution you cant go back, its a one way road, only forward.

[faye]

oops, you suddenly lost your sense of humour! baygham.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

bibi khadija (ra) and the prophet (saw) you speak of also had around a 20 year difference so the age gap issue is not an islamically legitimate concern.

and there is not an unlimited right of refusal for all suitors. islam emphasizes and encourages marriage as soon as maturity is reached.

if a suitable candidate asks for the hand of a female and he fits all of the islamic criteria, the girl is supposed to accept it.

it is not generally a custom back home for pakhtun girls to be adament in their refusal of a marriage their elders arranged in goodwill. in our culture, they tend to go along with the flow rather than being rebellious and arrogant like people here are. it is considered a matter of shame, for her to go into the details of who she wishes to marry, etc. her silence is considered her consent. i honestly believe the lies about pakhtun men being abusive and repressive are exaggerated by our enemies. contrary to what people allege, farsi-speaking areas such as herat, the north, in afghanistan are the ones where highly abusive marriages predominate. pakhtun men are renowned for their good treatment and protection of their women, who are considered as their namus in pakhtunwali.

so with that said, i dont think we should be encouraging the type of behavior involving running away from one's husband. it is a matter of great shame to both the wife and husband, and runs contrary to our culture of loyalty and integrity.

True, no one should come between man and wife... but the right of refusal was never executed. Its a logical conundrum to say that one can refuse and yet make it fard to refuse at the age of maturity. After all, how can one refuse except in the state of maturity when the offer comes in?:

Narrated Al-Qasim: A woman from the offspring of Ja'far was afraid lest her guardian marry her (to somebody) against her will. So she sent for two elderly men from the Ansar, 'AbdurRahman and Mujammi', the two sons of Jariya, and they said to her, "Don't be afraid, for Khansa' bint Khidam was given by her father in marriage against her will, then the Prophet cancelled that marriage." (Bukhari No. 78)

regarding the silence is consent custom you raise above... I would caution you because its an abuse of the edict of the Prophet:

Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent."

This was in response to the remainder of the hadith that followed in regard to the people following their whims:

Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage." (Bukhari No 101)

Where I would disagree with Bayghum is that Aisha loved that 50+ year old man to her dieing day and would say that if she was ever jealous of a woman it would have been Khadijah as the latter had truly captured Muhammad (S)'s heart.

I personally do not think ageism is an issue between consenting parties.

[qunduz92]

True, no one should come between man and wife... but the right of refusal was never executed. Its a logical conundrum to say that one can refuse and yet make it fard to refuse at the age of maturity. After all, how can one refuse except in the state of maturity when the offer comes in?:

Narrated Al-Qasim: A woman from the offspring of Ja'far was afraid lest her guardian marry her (to somebody) against her will. So she sent for two elderly men from the Ansar, 'AbdurRahman and Mujammi', the two sons of Jariya, and they said to her, "Don't be afraid, for Khansa' bint Khidam was given by her father in marriage against her will, then the Prophet cancelled that marriage." (Bukhari No. 78)

regarding the silence is consent custom you raise above... I would caution you because its an abuse of the edict of the Prophet:

Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "It is essential to have the consent of a virgin (for the marriage). I said, "A virgin feels shy." The Prophet; said, "Her silence means her consent."

This was in response to the remainder of the hadith that followed in regard to the people following their whims:

Some people said, "If a man falls in love with an orphan slave girl or a virgin and she refuses (him) and then he makes a trick by bringing two false witnesses to testify that he has married her, and then she attains the age of puberty and agrees to marry him and the judge accepts the false witness and the husband knows that the witnesses were false ones, he may consummate his marriage." (Bukhari No 101)

Where I would disagree with Bayghum is that Aisha loved that 50+ year old man to her dieing day and would say that if she was ever jealous of a woman it would have been Khadijah as the latter had truly captured Muhammad (S)'s heart.

I personally do not think ageism is an issue between consenting parties.

i'm assuming she was mature enough as there is currently a government ban on marriages of girls under the age of 17, or were the circumstances different?

whatever the case, i simply do not think we should be beating the drum of westerners who naturally want our women to become rebellious and promiscuous. the reason why infidelity, divorce rates and subsequent related crimes are so common here is due to that very culture of too much openness.

our culture is far superior in that our men and women alike are highly renowned for their loyalty and fidelity. we should encourage the continuance of this.

i am sure if many of us looked at the marriages of our aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, etc. we would find similar age gaps and similar marriage contracts, yet very happy marriages.

the thing with pakhtun women and even men is they usually are swayed by their elders to accept marriages they think would be appropriate. it is very rarely the case that a traditional girl or boy not exposed to western ideals, refuses a marriage that would otherwise be islamic and suitable because their criteria for suitability of an individual for marriage is not influenced by mainstream western pop culture.

many girls actually inherently prefer their husbands to be at least 4-5 years older which makes a lot of biological sense because women age much faster than men and women usually become infertile in their 40's while for men it is usually in their 70's.

just my side of the coin..

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Tragic but quite a routine story. To see a positive in a bullet hole in the forehead must take some effort, I am unfortunately not bestowed with such powers of imagination.

And with nonintervention a society perpetuates (remain in a state of equilibrium), which you are calling auto-corrects (auto-corrects implies go back to a previous state of equilibrium and thus remain the same, such as keep the same principles and form, as in perpetual devine islamic law),

Once a change occurs, you cannot go back, a primate cannot evolve back into an amoeba. So in evolution what you are calling autocorrects (go back to a previous state) cannot happen. Only a state of equilibrium can be sustained. Once that is perturbed(through multiple means, usually external), evolution (ie change) is inevitable, whether phyletic (continuous) or punctuated can be debated and honestly not even relevant at the moment

I consider Evolution more in line with the latter process, i.e. punctuated. Read punctuated equilibrium (in evolution) by Stephen Jay Gould.

You may claim not be bestowed with the powers of imagination... yet your imaginative capabilities of connecting unrelated concepts speaks to an active imagination.

Also, you continue to buttress emotion with more emotion: the statement that nonintervention breeds stagnation is completely devoid of sense or evidence.

I believe America's founding father's contradict you with Jefferson's famous comment on revolution: the tree of liberty must be refreshed by blood. The punctuated evolution then occured as a reaction to intervention... not as a sustained result of its presence.

Moreover, I would say that Africa and Asia have suffered quiet a bit of imperialism and western interventionalism... pray tell, did a railroad or two catapult them toward your secular utopia and bastion of human rights?

For that matter, the evidence of interventionalism in the middle east is bearing fruit right before your eyes.

A better example of autocorrection was Robespierre's french revolution. Without sustained interference from the outside, the society understood that it was Robespierre's head that deserved the guillotine.

Furthermore, the American experience itself is devoid of the sustained interventionalism you seek to impose on the Afghan people.

As usual, you defined a term and decided what it meant versus its usage in context. More of that non evidence based and ahistorical approach to life that I warned you about. Islam has nothing to do with raising a laskhaar or a girl getting shot in the head. You decided to define autocorrection as ='s resumption of mate gaurding behavior and traditional tribal law ='s Islam.

The point there is rather simple:

Enter Tom Stevens into an environment, and Tom is an American soldier. He is likely a foot soldier and just graduated high school. His view on women's rights and the ethics of justice is about as developed as that of most 18-22 year olds across the US. He probably reads Maxim Magazine and the last time he saw the inside of a text on civic justice or read Betty Freiden's The Feminine Mystique was in a past life (i.e. never). Maybe, if you wish hard enough and close your eyes tight enough, Tom Stevens might even be there "because they attacked us here." However, Tom's superiors know that this war is not about womens rights or about saving the Afghan people from themselves. At this point its about permanent bases and resources and being able to seen into central asia and china and russia coupled to some phantom cause.

Also, Tom is a Christian. We know how well those pesky Afghans enjoy the Christians preaching in their country. So we have established that Tom is not there to help Code Pink. Now, Tom comes into contact with Abdullah the Afghan. He humiliatingly searches him and usually treats him the way any trigger happy 18-22 year old does when he is given a M16 and some power without oversight.

Are you really that lacking in practical experience and life that you do not understand that Abdullah the Afghan will have a reaction to Tom (i.e. he will become a reactionary)? He is not going to endorse Tom's societial values because A) This is not Tom's society so he is not emersed in it and B) Tom's agenda is all muddled up in the politics of occupation.

So what you do is you set what I meant by "autocorrection" back about 100 years or so.

As I define it, autocorrection means that society ought to move towards more just and balanced paradigms as outside pressures are reduced. Just as the Puritans realized burning women alive for being witches just does not make sense for survival and societal stability... so too will a future generation of Afghans that do not have your brand of interventionalism imposed on them. Then, all intervention will be internalized and the society, if it is meant to survive will find a forward motion that allows for some semblance of a balanced and just society.

Heck, take a look at our own American society. When does the religious right tend to win elections? When the thread of an outside force ("Islamo Facism" as they are told today and "communism" as they were told about previously) comes their way they galvanize behind that protective unifying counter force of patriotism and southern bible belt christianity. Then, causes like stem cell therapies etc. that were rolling forward are taken 3 steps back when Mullah Bush sits on the takhth.

[faye]

'her silence means consent' it could also mean she is afraid, it could also mean she hasn't a choice.
men, mostly don't realise, that all over the world women have to be precautionery, their whole lives. when i have walked off alone along a beach, i have had predators with their penises in their hand follow me, and threatened with abuse and rape. and i am a tough cookie, but these things disturb me. so what chance does an innocent young woman have to make choices when her family might be humiliated or dishonoured, if she speaks out against others wishes.

[شمله ور خراساني]

'her silence means consent'

there are different opinions regarding this hadith. Silence is not necessarily and not always consent.