lolz aur b gham hain zmanay mai polygamy k ilawa

i dont understand why is this issue so important for jazibroomi specially

Falsafi ko behes may khuda milta nahi
Dor ko sulja raha hay aur sira milta nahi

I think every body is free to live.as u said agr slavery allowed y its illegal etc etc but still slavery exists.beating illegal still exists
so in pak everything is legal just live and let others live
not our business to interfere in other people affairs
Everybody has full right over his her life
We being mere human beings cannot decide what one should do and what not as we dont want that others tell us to do this and that we mostly spend our lives the way we want so fazul may apna dimagh khrb krny ki kia zrurt hay jisy jo krna hay wo tho wesy b wohi krega chahy log kuch b kahain.
hakumat lakh kahay bachy 2 hi achy
feudals and villagers will make a cricket team
koi lakh kahay ilm say ziada amal zruri tb b hum tho apny ilm hi ka parchar krengy WE ARE THE BEST.hum se acha kon hay keh kr ei smajh kr k humse bara scholar tho koi hay hi nahi.
so wats use of discussing such a thing which wont affect any mind any person any life any society any country and any law.
ei kaam tho tv k buht se channels aur un k hazarun talk shows kr rahay hian
but Alas! nothing practical can be done.
bri bri batein krna sb ko ata.Agay brna kisi k bas ki baat nahi

1.Then why it is illegal to beat your wife now while Allah allowed that "
reference : section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code ( remember moin khan, the cricketer, case who slapped his wife) quoted by jazib roomi




reply....to roomi

section 319 pakistan penal code states punishment for qat-e-khata
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever commit Qatl -e- khata shall be liable to Diyat...
provided that, where qatl khata is committed by any rash or negligent driving, the offender may, in addition to diyat, also be punhished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as taazir.

so dear jazib roomi there is nothing stated in section 319 about beating wife and its punishment....
================================================== ================================================== ======================

2. "then why is it illegal for a muslim to keep and have sex with his maid without marriage while allah allowed that"
reference: Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code.... quoted by jazib roomi.


reply... to roomi

section 377 pakistan penal code states un natural offences..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal , shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years nor more than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine .

so jazib roomi you are requested to post authentic sections or if you dont know about law then avoid to comment on such delicate issues .and tell us how Allah allowed it as you mentioned... its not a joke brother.. dont take religion easy... go and pray astaghfaaar...


dont misguide us any more

[quote=jazibroomi;242150"then why is it illegal for a muslim to keep and have sex with his maid without marriage while allah allowed that"
reference: Section 377 of the pakistan penal code.[/quote]

proove it please

proove the above as u mentioned... and tell us any case where Allah Allowed such sex....

I am duly getting your view points.

• You said, women should be strong enough to be self sufficient.
• You admit, the most of the men in our society exploit and discriminate women in various ways.
• And you believe polygamy should be abolished now.

As far as your given examples of Pakistan panel code are concerned, pakistani laws and Islamic laws are not the same to be compared. So can't say why something is there in pakistani panel code or why something is not.

And if Pakistani laws are to be emhasized,

• There is also a law by which a man can be charged if he marries second time without the consent of his first wife. Does anyone bother that law?
• There is a law regarding women's share in inheritence. Is it obeyed here, excluding a meagre portion of society? and a long list ...

Who care for laws here. And what will happen if added some more points to that panel code?



Coming to the core, You are of the view to change this divine ruling regarding polygamy (through Ijtehad) and think it would put an end to women dicrimination. right.

First thing, As I have already said if it were my choice, I would have abolished it. Secondly, it is more of men's interest (especially in our society where men misuse this permission only for their temptation) and they, most of the part, would never go for it.


I am not any blind follower and do not like others to be. But here I wanna ask something;
Will it still cause any harm, if it is followed fully as prescribed in Quran?

I just ask, without touching the controversy, If a man follows the clear cut directions (wherein no ambiguity lies or no chance of being interpreted in more than one ways) given by Allah, will it not be enough to change the whole scenario?

May be you are dreaming for the same kind of society as I but the difference lies in approach.

You are saying to abolish this option and think it would change the outlook. But I think, this kind of revolutions does not change the destiny of those people 'Jo dunya k kisi konay mein kisi na-muslim k kuch kehnay pe usay gustakh-e-Rasool keh k to apna eemaan zinda kertay hain, per apnay Rasool(P.B.U.H) k tareeqay pe chalna zruri nahi samajtay'.

Yes, it seems over simplistic to think that our Deen is flawless, but it is much more simple to correct our obvious mistakes before going to take such big steps.

• When birth of a girl baby would be celebrated same way as of a boy baby,
• When dowry would be abolished from our society (which is already non-Islamic but exists in our society),
• When consent of both man and woman would be considered mandatory for marriage agreement (that is Islamic but not bothered in majority cases),

.
.
.
etc.



Hamain Deen ki Islaah (Ijtehad) se Pehlay apni Islaah ki zrurat zyada hai.
Jb hamaray log in basic kamon mein theek ho jaen gay, to ye problem tab discuss ho sakay ga k whether polygamy should be abolished or not.
But now, it would not do any help rather generating a controversy and giving our people one more reason to fight.

Jazib bhai i dun think k koi bhi larki chahay gi k us ka husband dosri shadi kray...

__________________
"Do not look down upon any Muslims, perhaps Allah will forgive them for their ignorance, but punish you for your arrogance"

http://www.hibamagazine.com/index.ph...336&Itemid=176

Ibn Kathir says: “There was great
surprise in Makkah that the
Prophet (SAW) would choose to
marry a widow, who was neither
young nor beautiful. As Sauda
(RTA) grew aged, the Prophet (SAW) became worried that she might be upset about having to compete with so many younger wives; therefore, he offered to divorce her. She said that she would give her night to Aisha (RTA), of whom she was very fond, because she only wished to be the Prophet’s (saw) wife on the Day of Rising.
She lived on until the end of Umar
ibn al Khattab’s time. She and Aisha always remained very close.”

islamicdiversity.com/saudara.html

[Book: Fazail-e-Amaal
Author: Maulana Muhammad
Zakariyya Khandhalwi
Rahmatullahi Alayh]:

The Prophet Mohammad (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) once intended to
divorce her. As meanwhile Hadhrat
Aishah {Radhiyallaho anha) had also
been married to the Prophet
Mohammad (Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam) , she said:
“O, Prophet of Allah! I am ready to
forego my turn in favor of
Hadhrat Aishah {Radhiyallaho anha),
but I don't like to be divorced (by
you). I wish to be in Paradise as
one of your wives."
The Prophet Mohammad (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) agreed to this
suggestion. She died in about 55 A.
H. towards the end of the
Khilafat of Hadhrat Umar
(Radhiyallaho anho).
There was another Qureysh
woman of the same name. She also a widow having about six children.
The Prophet Mohammad (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) offered to marry
her, but she said:
“O, Prophet of Allah! You are
dearer to me than any other
person in this world. I do not like
my children to be a nuisance to you."
He appreciated this, and withdrew
the offer.


The following is another site where this controversy is discussed in detail and another reference of Abu Dawood's given for endorsement:
muslim-responses.com/Argument_Four/Argument_Four_

Google words like Sauda divorce, and you will find many sites.
You said "soda" but in reality its "sauda". The wrong spellings lead to wrong words and eventually to misunderstanding. See didn't I tell you that words could be misleading?

I had requested you to be more cautious as same words could generate different perecptions in one's peanut-brain, for example:
RUJOO' means, as earlier I said, to take back one's wife. You suggested that it could mean doing Nikkah as well. So tell me what's the difference? Taking back one's divorced wife or doing Nikkah with one's divorced wife?
Allah se Rujoo' karna: That means consultation, invoking, approaching Allah.
For God's sake one has to find the meaning of the word from its context (even Oxford dictionary alone will get you nowhere if the context is missing because context is the background of our perceptions). It was so easy to pick the idea of Rujoo' from my Roman Urdu but I don't know how did you hit and miss?
And please do discuss my interpretation of the term : Siraat-e-Mustaqeem. I dare your intellect. I believe my interpretation of the term Siraat-e-Mustaqeem is the best in the whole world because it did not come out of my intellect but intuition, you know divine guidance
Having read the above paragraphs, now read my ROMAN URDU (revised and made easy for you) once again and you will understand it for the first time:
1.Nabi Kareem(saw) ke zojeeyat mein rehney ke Soda R.A khwahishmand aur harees te, isi leye unhon ne apni baari hazrat Ayesha ko hadiya kar di ta keh Aap(saw) ka taqarrub aur mohabbat hasil hu aur jannat mein wo Aap(saw) ke biwi ban kar rahay. ( Agar divorce hu jati aap R.A tu pir jannat mein Aap (saw) ke biwi ban kar na reh sakti.
2. Ibn Saad ne kitaabon me likha hai keh Hazrat Soda R.A ne Aap(saw) se kaha: Mein Allah ka wasta deti hun keh Aap (saw) mujh se RUJOO' kar len, mein boorhi hu chuki hoon aur mujhe mardoon ke zaroorat nahin, lekin mein chahti hun keh Qayamat ke din mujhe Aap(saw) ke biwiyun me uthaya jaey. (Agar Aap (saw) hazrat Sauda R.A se Rujoo' na kartay, rishta na jorhtay tu Qayamat ke din Aap (saw) ke biwi ke haiseeyat se na utaya jata.
Chunanchay App(saw) ne unse RUJOO' kar liya.

Actually those things which could spark controversy are downplayed by islamic scholars in their books, or at least they tried so because Prophet pbuh is our ideal and is at the foundation of our whole deen. Therefore in the above Roman Urdu, the actual author, carrier or propagator of the Hadith avoided using explicit words like Talaq etc and rather reflected the theme, the core of the idea in a most humble, modest way--- in the great respect of our prophet pbuh.
Like kids often ask their parents that how did my little brother or sister came into the world? To which the parents reply: The baby was gifted to us by the angels, or we got the baby by the river etc. They avoid telling kids the actual reality in actual words because children always think ideal, most decent, purest, in fact angels of their parents. A thought about their parents sleeping together in the sense of Rage's "Intimate sincerity" won't ever cross their fragile minds.
Following are my few examples which are not related to anything above but they will clear up how historians, patriotic historians tried to suppress the disgustable sides of the actual stories and emphasized instead the softer image of their ideals, mentors, heroes, founders etc:
Guevara, besides being emancipator, was a ruthless killer revolutionary but Cubans hail him as their hero and won't tolerate if you call him a murderer of thousands. They have buried his short-comings and atrocities in their minds and are focusing on his bright side.
Baba-e-Qaum: The founder of our nation was the first to ask US for Aid but US denied him the favor. Now should we write this fact in the text books taught in schools? That ours is a country which started to beg ever since its very creation. Sorry all the patriots out there. Fact is fact.
Medical fact: Table salt worsens Blood Pressure in Hypertensive individuals (those having High blood pressure). But a US based medical research has found out that those hypertensive individuals who observe strict abstinence from salt die earlier than those who don't restrain from adding it to their meals (of course in modest amounts; by modest I mean normal amounts, not excess). But doctors are still heard telling patients to keep away from salt altogether. Why? Because of the settled notions since ages that salt only does harm to hypertensive individuals.
Columbus besides discovering America, shot millions of red indians but people don't talk about that.
BB did corruption of billions of dollars, her palace one should watch in Surrey, UK, her swiss bank accounts, her hotel in France and God knows what else on this earth. Still most of the people in this country were literally crying over her demise despite the fact that she robbed this country in her lifetime and now her husband and then her children will keep repeating the history. The poor, unemplyed are dying, commiting suicides but nobody tends to them. Extreme inflation, crisis, bad governance etc are the order of the day and still people are not rising against the government to overthrow it and replace it. Why? Because people in the long run become habituated to abuse and their conscience goes into sleep mode; they hear atrocity, they witness their rights being usurped but they don't feel it; they start taking it as a routine and they start going with the flow like we are flowing right now without asserting our collective will, our rights, our dreams. No matter what havoc this government wreack on its people, its people will again be running head over heels to vote for the same political party. Because they have become habituated to them, their abuse.
This mental habituation which takes the form of a trend which becomes the part of a custom which goes to become a part of culture and culture eventually institutionalizes itself, and then it becomes really hard to stand against an institution or demote it altogether. That's how it works, that's how our brains work. It takes decades and centuries for the light to prevail, for people to wake up and stand for their inalienable rights. I'm sure great Iqbal knew it and that's why he aptly said even before the creation of pakistan:
Hazaarun saal Nargis apni bay-noori pe roti hai, Barhi mushkil se hota hai . .

In your display pic, you seem to have a beautiful family, your better half rocks. Now we know why are you a staunch advocate of monogamy and a chronic monogamist!
Wish you a happy marital life always and a few more kids ( of course with the same wife).

What? What? If a woman does not like "his" hubby to go for second marriage . . . .?
I had implored you to watch your WORDS, didn't I? Now here is my answer to your question:
Certainly polygamy should be EXCEPTIONALLY allowed for that husband whose wife happens to have had gender transformation through modern surgical procedures after she had more than enough of his male chauvinism and decided in her "rage" to end it all and teach him a lesson he won't forget. Understand?
In USA on average 3 people daily undergo gender transformation. So no problem if you used the words "his" and "her" interchangeably. That could be forgiven. Happy now? : )

I knew it.
When logic exhausts, you are left with nothing but such weak arguments.
And that is your shallow approach that I wanted to show you.

Just see, all of your focus got stuck in the Word 'his' (which was a typing mistake) but unfortunately, you could not find any reason to support your view wherein you criticize me on saying that 'Allah's message is same for all and sundry'.


I just asked you to give me a valid example (if you have any where Allah gave different messages to cater the exceptional approaches of different individuals.

I didn't ask you to tell what should be, as you said,
Check out your previous posts, You said, "there are exceptions; some women would not mind their husbands' second maariage while many will do."

So, I just humbly replied to this statement that 'Exceptions do not change Allah's saying'. Whether a woman likes or not, polygamy is allowed as it is.

Unfortunately, despite your superior brain and intellect (as you scientifically proved in your earlier posts ) you could not get the meaning except the sense of opposition that you got from my words.

First, just sort out things yourself that what are you trying to oppose or prove infact. Your such baseless posts are nothing but beating about bush.