Islamic women’s rights (A rarely discussed topic)

[Breathe]

So just in case you don’t know, yes, women do have rights in Islam.

Unfortunately not many people talk about it. Not quite sure why. But here are a wifes rights according to Islam:

-Her husband must give her dowry. She may ask for anything from money, house, car, clothes, etc. If he doesn’t give dowry, the marriage is not valid.
-She has the right to choose whether she wants to work or not. Her husband cannot ask her to join the workforce, that is a sin for him.
-He cannot ask her to assist pay bills, even if she is making more money than him.
-It is the man’s duty to be the provider for both his wife’s and children’s expenses.

Any financial help that she chooses to provide is actually considered a favor. She is not required to help financially at all, even if she does work. Not following these rules may result him to going to hell. What is your opinion on this?

For more information, you can watch his video. It’s very interesting. This Islamic scholar says that Muslim women have been complaining that their husbands are now asking them to get jobs. Which is making it difficult to manage children/family life.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=18Z1Sz2KS_A

[Laly]

Muslim countries, associated within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), adopted in 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Islamic human rights.

This is what the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), for ex., has to say about it:

[sean]

So just in case you don’t know, yes, women do have rights in Islam. Unfortunately not many people talk about it. Not quite sure why.

Nobody gives a fuck about brown Muslim women.

But here are a wifes rights according to Islam: Her husband must give her dowry. She may ask for anything from money, house, car, clothes, etc. If he doesn’t give dowry, the marriage is not valid.

Mahr (dowry) is basically the price of a woman. It is mandatory in order for the marriage contract to be valid. Keep in mind that marriage contracts in Arabic are called "aqd nikah" which literally translates to sexual contract, and by paying the Mahr, the husband is therefore paying the future bride for her sexual services.

Another example of this is the fact that Muslim men are required to provide financial support for women in exchange for their total sexual submissiveness, hence why hadiths are against the idea of women refusing sex, because after all their only worth in a nikah contract is to provide sex for the husband. Therefore, the Mahr (bride-price) is not, as Muslim women like you believe, a way of a husband showing his seriousness and willingness to commit to a relationship. It is the price of having sex with the woman/wife, essentially long term prostitution.

In countries that follow Islamic laws, whatever might protect women in marriage (or work in their favour) is always going to be overshadowed by the unfair divorce laws. Since marital rape and physical abuse are allowed in Islam, and since all the power of divorce fully lies in the husband's hand, it can be very difficult for a woman to leave a marriage she does not want to be in. How exactly is her $3000 Mahr from 7 years ago supposed to help her when she's trying to convince a judge to grant her a divorce against her husband's wishes?

Anyway, it's mainly a South Asian thing. In Afghan culture, women prefer to tie their Mahr to divorce initiated by men. Pakistani women like to recieve their Mahr upfront. Mahr by its very nature is not divided into parts, except how the female chooses to receive it.

Kashmiris give large dowries for example, whereas Punjabi custom is that the bride actually brings dowry with her from her parents to her husband's household.

Any financial help that she chooses to provide is actually considered a favor. She is not required to help financially at all, even if she does work. Not following these rules may result him to going to hell. For more information, you can watch his video. It’s very interesting. This Islamic scholar says that Muslim women have been complaining that their husbands are now asking them to get jobs. Which is making it difficult to manage children/family life. What is your opinion on this?

Why do you keep making your shitty "Muslim women should be allowed to work" threads? You've got more than enough answers yet you keep making these threads. If you are bored, read the posts of hundreds of other users who have answered the same question in your other threads.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...e-%97-Thoughts
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...join-workforce
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ell-them-this)

[Breathe]

Nobody gives a fuck about brown Muslim women.



Mahr (dowry) is basically the price of a woman. It is mandatory in order for the marriage contract to be valid. Keep in mind that marriage contracts in Arabic are called "aqd nikah" which literally translates to sexual contract, and by paying the Mahr, the husband is therefore paying the future bride for her sexual services.

Another example of this is the fact that Muslim men are required to provide financial support for women in exchange for their total sexual submissiveness, hence why hadiths are against the idea of women refusing sex, because after all their only worth in a nikah contract is to provide sex for the husband. Therefore, the Mahr (bride-price) is not, as Muslim women like you believe, a way of a husband showing his seriousness and willingness to commit to a relationship. It is the price of having sex with the woman/wife, essentially long term prostitution.

In countries that follow Islamic laws, whatever might protect women in marriage (or work in their favour) is always going to be overshadowed by the unfair divorce laws. Since marital rape and physical abuse are allowed in Islam, and since all the power of divorce fully lies in the husband's hand, it can be very difficult for a woman to leave a marriage she does not want to be in. How exactly is her $3000 Mahr from 7 years ago supposed to help her when she's trying to convince a judge to grant her a divorce against her husband's wishes?

Anyway, it's mainly a South Asian thing. In Afghan culture, women prefer to tie their Mahr to divorce initiated by men. Pakistani women like to recieve their Mahr upfront. Mahr by its very nature is not divided into parts, except how the female chooses to receive it.

Kashmiris give large dowries for example, whereas Punjabi custom is that the bride actually brings dowry with her from her parents to her husband's household.



Why do you keep making your shitty "Muslim women should be allowed to work" threads? You've got more than enough answers yet you keep making these threads. If you are bored, read the posts of hundreds of other users who have answered the same question in your other threads.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...e-%97-Thoughts
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...join-workforce
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ell-them-this)

I think it western men start paying their brides dowry, they will stop divorcing their husbands and take all their wealth away lol.

Honey like it or not. It is engrained in us females. We like a man who can provide for us. It’s been like this for thousands of years. Just because of a couple dozen feminists don’t like this, doesn’t mean our biology will change!

[Tongio]

Lol this days It seems to me that what most western woman really like is nota Men but beeing desired and to see that they have sexual value, but instead of the dowry we have likes and social media widespread softprostitution .

[sean]

I think it western men start paying their brides dowry, they will stop divorcing their husbands and take all their wealth away lol.

I don't think so. Actually getting half of a man's wealth in a divorce is very hard, first of all they have to be married for a very long time, second, if you marry a girl that doesn't work, that's your problem.

Most divorces are settled out of court, with a court order making the agreement enforceable, but the court doesn't decide what the agreement will be.

Typically, you will keep your personal property as yours that is acquired before marriage. However, if your house has appreciated since marriage, your spouse is entitled to half of that increase in value.

You can argue for a split other than 50/50 of the appreciation in value but it is rare for a judge to award a split other than the default, and in MOST cases when judges do vary the order - it's more likely that a spouse with lower income/lower income potential would be awarded more than 50% of the appreciated value, depending on some other circumstances (presence of children, age of children, other factors).

CS orders that look absurdly large are the result of cases in which there is a very large disparity between parental incomes. A second bedroom in a high-COL area, and the costs of private school or daycare can eat loads of money, faster than you'd think.

Spoiler!

Honey like it or not. It is engrained in us females. We like a man who can provide for us. It’s been like this for thousands of years. Just because of a couple dozen feminists don’t like this, doesn’t mean our biology will change!

There's a difference between being seen solely as a provider, and being seen as ideal, and the provider part is tacked on.

The former implies she is only with you for your money or what you can give her, not so much any attraction and thus doesn’t love you fully. She is really there for the gravy train and anything in regards to sex (which is more important to men than anything else) is more “duty” and something for her to “deal” with.

The latter is more that the providing is there, but she is still very much attracted to you. She wants to fuck you, she wants to be seen with you, she chose you because you were attractive in some way and the fact you are a provider is a bonus, and even if you lost your wealth, or job, she would still want to fuck you. It’s also that sex isn’t something to “deal” with, but rather something she looks forward to do, which validates a man immensely.

It all comes down to validation, one has validation, the other doesn’t.

Regarding dowry, women tended to marry immediately after reaching puberty, in their mid-teens. Societies where most of the population lived in small agricultural communities were characterized by these marriage practices well into the 19th century.

Men tended to marry later in societies where a married couple was expected to establish a household of their own. That usually meant that men remained unmarried until they accumulated sufficient wealth to support a new home, and were married in their mature age to adolescent girls, who contributed a dowry to the family finances. You are supposed to be paid by an older man to take them off his hands. So dowry is usually restricted to brown Asian communities.