Luna Park kicked out a Muslim woman who asked not to sit by a man

[Ridonks_CB]

CONEY ISLAND — A Muslim woman was called a "terrorist b----" and kicked out of Luna Park after she asked not to sit next to a man on a ride because of her religious beliefs, a new lawsuit charges. --https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150519/coney-island/luna-park-booted-muslim-woman-who-asked-not-sit-near-man-on-ride-suit

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think Luna Park was right in kicking them out and assaulting Hamed (the woman's husband)? Just discuss your thoughts on what happened.
Fyi not wanting to sit near the man was in no way "extreme." It is out of respect and modesty and commonly practiced that the two genders do not touch except thoe they are allowed to (a wife, sister, niece, daughter).

[WanderingHeart]

Heyy, you figured out how to post!

That is honestly the dumbest thing I have heard. They shouldn't be allowed to kick her out simply for asking to not sit by a man. Also, there was no need to assault her husband! This islamophobia is getting out of hand.

[Microcosm]

"At this point, park employees, including the ride attendant from 'Wild River,' became hostile, surrounded Asmaa Abdalla and began yelling racial slurs at her, including calling her a 'terrorist b----,'" the lawsuit says.

This is unacceptable and largely disrespectful. Those people should lose their jobs or at least be suspended for a period of time. While I can kind of understand how in certain situations it would be difficult to allow her to change her seat, it is absolutely uncalled for when a trained park associate hurls racial slurs like that. It's unprofessional and disgusting.

[thatcountrykid]

If what they did was true then it was wrong how ever I would not be suprised if they did fake the ordeal at all. I mean I've been called racist for telling my manager I couldn't understand her because of her accent so.

[Microcosm]

If what they did was true then it was wrong how ever I would not be suprised if they did fake the ordeal at all. I mean I've been called racist for telling my manager I couldn't understand her because of her accent so.

You have to consider, though, the strong anti-Muslim behavior which seems to be growing exponentially with all the talk of the Islamic State. It's absolutely sickening to me that anyone would call a perfectly normal woman a "terrorist b--ch" like that. It's uncalled for and it simply puts the societal issue of unjustified Muslim hatred out in the open. Muslims are not bad people. Terrorists are bad people. With this in mind, I think it's very unlikely that this situation was "faked" as you said and it should be taken into consideration with the utmost seriousness.

[thatcountrykid]

You have to consider, though, the strong anti-Muslim behavior which seems to be growing exponentially with all the talk of the Islamic State. It's absolutely sickening to me that anyone would call a perfectly normal woman a "terrorist b--ch" like that. It's uncalled for and it simply puts the societal issue of unjustified Muslim hatred out in the open. Muslims are not bad people. Terrorists are bad people. With this in mind, I think it's very unlikely that this situation was "faked" as you said and it should be taken into consideration with the utmost seriousness.

Exactly with all the hype recently it would be easier to fake it. I think it should be proven before you jump to conclusions.

[Ridonks_CB]

Exactly with all the hype recently it would be easier to fake it. I think it should be proven before you jump to conclusions.

You really think someone would fake this? It is proven clearly by all the anti-Muslim bigotry shown on TV and creeping into laws such as France's anti-niqab rules. it's not fake.

[fairmaiden]

This is absolutely horrible. I hope they win their legal case because this is islamaphobic and sick. People should stop generalising the entire Muslim faith - actually, people should stop generalising anyone's faith all together.

She made a simple request and they call her derogatory and discriminatory terms? Disgraceful.

[thatcountrykid]

You really think someone would fake this? It is proven clearly by all the anti-Muslim bigotry shown on TV and creeping into laws such as France's anti-niqab rules. it's not fake.

So just because other white people have and sore feelings towards Muslims and in some cases rightfully so, these people are automatically racist. I like evidence.

[Babs]

and in some cases rightfully so

Please tell me what Muslims did to justify grouping together an entire religious group - 1.57 billion people, over 23% of the world, mind you - together as terrorists? I'd love to know.

[WanderingHeart]

Okay, stop fighting guys.

Maybe countrykid doesn't believe it's real. Okay, that's your belief.

Even so, it is still sickening and horrible.

[thatcountrykid]

Please tell me what Muslims did to justify grouping together an entire religious group - 1.57 billion people, over 23% of the world, mind you - together as terrorists? I'd love to know.

For example France, people were angry after the shootings. I'm not saying it makes it ok to group together all Muslims but they will have sore feelings and suspicions. The two shooters were "normal" people before

Okay, stop fighting guys.

Maybe countrykid doesn't believe it's real. Okay, that's your belief.

Even so, it is still sickening and horrible.

I'm not saying it's definitley not real. I'm saying there's a chance and we should hear proof. If it's real it's wrong. If it's not its race baiting

[WanderingHeart]

For example France, people were angry after the shootings. I'm not saying it makes it ok to group together all Muslims but they will have sore feelings and suspicions. The two shooters were "normal" people before



I'm not saying it's definitley not real. I'm saying there's a chance and we should hear proof. If it's real it's wrong. If it's not its race baiting

And I completely understand that you would like proof. I just hope that this isn't the only post you've asked for proof.

[Babs]

For example France, people were angry after the shootings. I'm not saying it makes it ok to group together all Muslims but they will have sore feelings and suspicions. The two shooters were "normal" people before

Feeling suspicious of a Muslim based upon the bad things another Muslim did is, in fact, grouping Muslims together.

[thatcountrykid]

Feeling suspicious of a Muslim based upon the bad things another Muslim did is, in fact, grouping Muslims together.

You know what j mean. Im this is similar. Just as an example people being suspicious of all politicians or all cops or all gays or all anything. Stereotypes are everywhere and people are just afraid. Sometimes with no reason and no it's not really fair. I don't like being assumed racist yet I am

[Babs]

You know what j mean. Im this is similar. Just as an example people being suspicious of all politicians or all cops or all gays or all anything. Stereotypes are everywhere and people are just afraid. Sometimes with no reason and no it's not really fair. I don't like being assumed racist yet I am

I never said anything about you being racist.
But justifying racial stereotypes is shitty as hell.

[thatcountrykid]

I never said anything about you being racist.
But justifying racial stereotypes is shitty as hell.

I'm not saying it's a good thing but there's a reason they happen. And plenty of times you have and many others

[Babs]

I'm not saying it's a good thing but there's a reason they happen. And plenty of times you have and many others

Look at your first post in this thread and read the sentence "and sometimes rightfully so".
I'm not gonna lie and say I've never said or thought anything racist, but I'm not gonna try and say those things were A-OK, because they weren't.

[thatcountrykid]

Look at your first post in this thread and read the sentence "and sometimes rightfully so".
I'm not gonna lie and say I've never said or thought anything racist, but I'm not gonna try and say those things were A-OK, because they weren't.

When have I bet claimed racism was ok. Legitimate racism.

And I'm saying they do have reasons for their fear. Does it make it right and should all be grouped together? No. But if someone from a group attacks me and it's a religious group your damn right I'll be suspicious when I see fit. especially with an I rational hate towards me

[Babs]

When have I bet claimed racism was ok. Legitimate racism.

And I'm saying they do have reasons for their fear. Does it make it right and should all be grouped together? No. But if someone from a group attacks me and it's a religious group your damn right I'll be suspicious when I see fit. especially with an I rational hate towards me

I didn't say you justified racism in itself, but you yourself justified racial stereotypes and admit to vehemently clinging to them.

[Syzygy]

----

[thatcountrykid]

I didn't say you justified racism in itself, but you yourself justified racial stereotypes and admit to vehemently clinging to them.

I'm not saying stereotyping is ok by any means but can you blame someone for having a fear after something like that. A fear of something they might not fully understand.

[Babs]

Islam is not a race
I realize that, but Islamophobia usually falls under the racism umbrella.

I'm not saying stereotyping is ok by any means but can you blame someone for having a fear after something like that. A fear of something they might not fully understand.

You clearly understand and know what it is yet you still say you're gonna stereotype.

[thatcountrykid]

I realize that, but Islamophobia usually falls under the racism umbrella.



You clearly understand and know what it is yet you still say you're gonna stereotype.

I'm saying it's reasonable after something like that to be suspicious

[Babs]

I'm saying it's reasonable after something like that to be suspicious

No, it really isn't.

[thatcountrykid]

No, it really isn't.

Ok. You believe that everybody in this world is a good person. The world is evil Id rather assume someone is bad then get hurt

[Babs]

Ok. You believe that everybody in this world is a good person. The world is evil Id rather assume someone is bad then get hurt

There's a difference between blindly trusting strangers and not assuming someone is a terrorist based upon their religion.

[TapDancer]

If the claims are true - that her husband was struck and they were hurled racist abuse, then that is truly awful.

I will say this though, as someone who works in an amusement park (Luna Park Sydney, actually), I will say that her request would not have been the easiest to cater to. Our job is to get as many people through as we can to get the shortest line possible, and requesting not to sit next to someone because of their gender is not a normal request. We do try to get people sitting next to people they want to sit, but in the case of one person, we have to sit another single rider with you, otherwise the wait times would be that much longer. We also have many muslim people visit out park and we have seated Muslim women next to adult males who are not travelling with them and we have never had an issue. Although I am not Muslim myself, I have studied Islam somewhat, and never have I ever read that a Muslim woman can not sit next to men other than her husband. It seems silly. I am aware that it is forbidden for a Muslim man to be alone with a female who is not his wife or close relative, and thus women are not to be near men alone unless they are in some way related to that male, but this is because Muslims believe it may lead to temptation. While I do not 100% agree with that logic, I do understand it. But in an amusement park ride, you can not say she was alone with this other unknown male.

[WanderingHeart]

If the claims are true - that her husband was struck and they were hurled racist abuse, then that is truly awful.

I will say this though, as someone who works in an amusement park (Luna Park Sydney, actually), I will say that her request would not have been the easiest to cater to. Our job is to get as many people through as we can to get the shortest line possible, and requesting not to sit next to someone because of their gender is not a normal request. We do try to get people sitting next to people they want to sit, but in the case of one person, we have to sit another single rider with you, otherwise the wait times would be that much longer. We also have many muslim people visit out park and we have seated Muslim women next to adult males who are not travelling with them and we have never had an issue. Although I am not Muslim myself, I have studied Islam somewhat, and never have I ever read that a Muslim woman can not sit next to men other than her husband. It seems silly. I am aware that it is forbidden for a Muslim man to be alone with a female who is not his wife or close relative, and thus women are not to be near men alone unless they are in some way related to that male, but this is because Muslims believe it may lead to temptation. While I do not 100% agree with that logic, I do understand it. But in an amusement park ride, you can not say she was alone with this other unknown male.

So they couldn't just switch her with another single rider that didn't mind?

The point of this isn't to discuss what is okay in Islam and what iisn't, but the fact that they did all of this because she was a Muslim.

[Sapehra]

Shouldn't have made such a big deal about sitting next to a guy.

[fairmaiden]

Ok. You believe that everybody in this world is a good person. The world is evil Id rather assume someone is bad then get hurt
Hmm, so because Aristocrats doesn't stereotype Muslims like you do, you feel the need to make such a baseless statement. Are you actually serious? If everyone shared the same ideology; no one would trust ANYONE, seeing as there are people from every religion/non-religion/race who have done something bad. Should I stop trusting other Christians because Adolf Hitler was born a Catholic (and grew up as one)?

We are all human. Stop stereotyping members of another religion just because a few of its followers have done terrible things. Didn't you say that you ''respect people until they lose your respect''? Do Muslims automatically lose your respect? Because stereotyping and judging someone (especially before you've even met them), does infer that you don't respect them.

I'm not asking you to walk up to a Muslim and start singing about how fabulous they are, but just stop judging innocent people.

[WanderingHeart]

Shouldn't have made such a big deal about sitting next to a guy.


All she did was ask because it was against her religion.

[Sapehra]

All she did was ask because it was against her religion.

It's not. Where in Islam does it say you can't sit next to people of the opposite sex?

[WanderingHeart]

It's not. Where in Islam does it say you can't sit next to people of the opposite sex?

Some Muslims feel that it is inappropriate of their religion to do that. Is that a bad thing? No, it is not.

[Jaffe]

I think she has a right to her religious belief, or her own interpretation of that belief, and the park had no right to kick her out.

If they were reserved seats for an event, she had no right to ask the guy next to her to move, so she could have just stood up.
On a ride, she probably should have just passed to the next ride if a guy was already in the seat, or asked a woman in line to sit with her.

How they got the word "terrorist" in there, I haven't figured out. Americans love to label people, esp people that disagree with them. (Hey, I live here, too... but just saying)

At first this totally confused me. I thought Luna Park was in Buenos Aires. And I dont think this would have happened there.

[Sapehra]

Some Muslims feel that it is inappropriate of their religion to do that. Is that a bad thing? No, it is not.

Well, one they are factually wrong in believing that. Two, you clearly haven't lived in a Muslim country to know their mindset. If you did you wouldn't question just how bad it is. The separation of men & women in Islamic societies stems from a misogynistic view, that the honour of a man lies within his wife. Therefore if his wife so much as (in this case) sat next to a man, or shook his hand, then she's a harlot.

Note; I am not saying Muslims are evil. But their mindset is destructive.

I think she has a right to her religious belief, or her own interpretation of that belief, and the park had no right to kick her out.

She has a right to it, but that doesn't mean institutions should cater to her superstition. Her beliefs stem from a long-line of sexism, passed down from one generation to the next. America mustn't cater to her nonsense.

[Left Now]

Well, one they are factually wrong in believing that. Two, you clearly haven't lived in a Muslim country to know their mindset. If you did you wouldn't question just how bad it is. The separation of men & women in Islamic societies stems from a misogynistic view, that the honour of a man lies within his wife. Therefore if his wife so much as (in this case) sat next to a man, or shook his hand, then she's a harlot.

Seriously sir,with all respects,you have below zero knowledge about what you are talking about in this thread.

Also,this thread was not about a Muslim woman weeping about sitting beside a stranger man,but about being called a "Terrorist ..." (seriously?) for not wanting to sit beside a stranger man.They could just simply respect her and apologize her and politely saying that She would need to wait for another round if she insists on sitting beside her husband or another woman,if it wasn't possible to change her seat in that round.

But cussing at her and insulting her and calling her something 100% irrelevant to her and kick her and her husband out of the amusement park,only for not wanting to sit beside a stranger man,is something completely messed up.

[Sapehra]

Seriously sir,with all respects,you have below zero knowledge about what you are talking about in this thread.

I have nothing against the woman, I despise her reluctance to sit next to a man based on her religious faith. If these are true Muslims, Islam is inherently sexist.

[phuckphace]

"terrorist bitch" lmao shitthatneverhappened.txt

seriously I bet they made this story up. New York has been a multicultural hellhole since way before multicultural hellholes were cool. what really happened was some WASPy pork eating kafir rolled his eyes at the couple and they suddenly realized this bit of rudeness could be turned into mountains of cash if they hire the right loiyah. AMERICA

[Jaffe]

Note; I am not saying Muslims are evil. But their mindset is destructive.

She has a right to it, but that doesn't mean institutions should cater to her superstition. Her beliefs stem from a long-line of sexism, passed down from one generation to the next. America mustn't cater to her nonsense.


1. I didnt say they needed to cater to it. But to kick her out entirely seems too extreme.

2. In my limited experience, I have seen the equally destructive mindsets in both Islam and Christianity. Something neither religion actually preaches, but which individuals interpret as doctrine.

And yes, since you asked, I do have friends that are Muslim. One very close friend.

[Left Now]

I have nothing against the woman, I despise her reluctance to sit next to a man based on her religious faith. If these are true Muslims, Islam is inherently sexist.

And I did not say you had neither.I just said that you lack information about it.

Not wanting to sit beside a stranger man is not something related to religion,since religion itself doesn't forbid anyone to sit beside a stranger of opposite sex,neither male or female,it just recommends people to keep logic distances from a stranger from opposite sex,both men and women you know it is not just for females,a man (single and not married) would better to keep a logic distance from a woman (single and not married) too.

I believe the main reason of this recommendation is to respect the private zone and comfort of a person from opposite sex,particularly a female person,ladies here might understand.

However,still it is not something like "If you do it,you are ...
" . Sometimes in here we are forced to sit so tight beside each others when we are traveling in a taxi,and nothing is wrong with it.But it's better to always let a female person have a better and vaster private zone if possible.

Anyway,the situation here was really messed up,don't you agree?It was not about her,they could simply apologize her and say that she had to wait for the next round if she insists on sitting beside her own husband or another female person,if it were not possible to change her seat in that round.

Shouting cusses at her and kicking her and husband out is something that I cannot understand,just for not wanting to sit beside a male person.

[Sapehra]

Not wanting to sit beside a stranger man is not something related to religion,since religion itself doesn't forbid anyone to sit beside a stranger of opposite sex,neither male or female,it just recommends people to keep logic distances from a stranger from opposite sex,both men and women you know it is not just for females,a man (single and not married) would better to keep a logic distance from a woman (single and not married) too.

The woman in the article apparently thinks it is a matter of religious faith. Why not just say 'I want to sit with my husband please'. What's the deal with bringing Islam into it?

Anyway,the situation here was really messed up,don't you agree?It was not about her,they could simply apologize her and say that she had to wait for the next round if she insists on sitting beside her own husband or another female person,if it were not possible to change her seat in that round.

The situation is messed up, I agree. I'm not sure how true this article is. If I owned a park, or worked in one, my last resort would be to get into a quarrel, as I have a responsibility to make sure customers are happy. What's even more ridiculous is that the article suggests that these employees just magically, out of nowhere, started cussing the couple and assaulting them. There has to be a logical explanation for this. I refuse to believe that an amusement park with a reputation to keep, assaults a minority group just for a laugh.

And I did not say you had neither.I just said that you lack information about it.

I agree, I do. I don't anyone here knows exactly what happened. We're just taking the authors word for it.

[Left Now]

The woman in the article apparently thinks it is a matter of religious faith. Why not just say 'I want to sit with my husband please'. What's the deal with bringing Islam into it?

I agree.It looks like both sides had taken the situation so serious.Both the couple and crews.

Plus+At the end of that sentence of mine,you can also add:Yes,Islam forbids stranger people to act irregularly with each others.You understand what I say right?Just for general information not anything related to the topic.



The situation is messed up, I agree. I'm not sure how true this article is. If I owned a park, or worked in one, my last resort would be to get into a quarrel, as I have a responsibility to make sure customers are happy. What's even more ridiculous is that the article suggests that these employees just magically, out of nowhere, started cussing the couple and assaulting them. There has to be a logical explanation for this. I refuse to believe that an amusement park with a reputation to keep, assaults a minority group just for a laugh.

Sometimes prejudice works the most,right?But it seems suspicious I agree.






I agree, I do. I don't anyone here knows exactly what happened. We're just taking the authors word for it.

Propaganda and Censorship.It is everywhere.

[Sapehra]

Plus+At the end of that sentence of mine,you can also add:Yes,Islam forbids stranger people to act irregularly with each others.You understand what I say right?Just for general information not anything related to the topic.

Yeah, Islam forbids a lot of things.

[Left Now]

Yeah, Islam forbids a lot of things.

Not lots of things,but apparently sexual behaviors do not seem good,specially in public.

[Sapehra]

Not lots of things,but apparently sexual behaviors do not seem good,specially in public.

Define 'sexual behaviour'

[Airrd]

I would find that incredibly offensive if they made her sit with another man because I have seen plenty of times groups of people going down rides by themselves or waiting so that they could go on the ride when they wanted to but being called a terrorist was very uncalled for because she wasn't trying to hurt anyone she just was following her beliefs.

[Left Now]

Define 'sexual behaviour'

Well,behaviors like kissing (I mean for example making out),romantically touching,having contact with sexual intentions and ....

[Sapehra]

Well,behaviors like kissing (I mean for example making out),romantically touching,having contact with sexual intentions and ....

I would argue with you about this but that would stray away from the debate. So for that reason I won't. But that's your opinion. I think Islam is harmful because it suggests that 'sexual behaviours' are haraam حرام, yet having several wives is perfectly reasonable.

[Left Now]

I would argue with you about this but that would stray away from the debate. So for that reason I won't. But that's your opinion. I think Islam is harmful because it suggests that 'sexual behaviours' are haraam حرام, yet having several wives is perfectly reasonable.

Well,when I was saying you lack information it was about this part.

[Sapehra]

Well,when I was saying you lack information it was about this part.

Enlighten me man! I'm only from one of the many Islamic countries of the world, what would I know? :whoops:

[Left Now]

Enlighten me man. I'm only from one of the many Islamic countries of the world, what would I know? :whoops:

Sorry I was just editing my previous post when you post a new one.

Plus+
https://data2.whicdn.com/images/71379087/large.jpg

Well,when I was saying you lack information it was about this part.Sexual behaviors are not forbidden,but UNLEASHING your sexual behaviors in public is not right,you know UNLEASHING.I believe nearly everyone will agree with it.

Also,having several wives seemed reasonable in those days,but not these days,and also in Quran it has mentioned that a man can only have up to four wives,only if his previous wife (or wives) accept it and approve it completely willingly and only if he is sure that he can completely be fair with all his wives and treat them equally well,both in emotional and financial issues.

Otherwise Polygamy is not approved and is even forbidden for men,and in many cases illegal,and they will face trials for doing it here at least.This is why no one can have multiple wives anymore,since acting completely fair and satisfying everyone is not possible.

[Sapehra]

Well,when I was saying you lack information it was about this part.Sexual behaviors are not forbidden,but UNLEASHING your sexual behaviors in public is not right,you know UNLEASHING.I believe nearly everyone will agree with it.

I don't think they do man. I personally see nothing wrong with kissing in public (as kissing is what you were referring to). You probably don't like it, neither does the Qur'an but the Qur'an is not a moral authority, it's an ancient book.

Also,having several wives seemed reasonable in those days,but not these days

So the conclusion there is, the Qur'an isn't applicable to modern day life, it's a book of its time. Keep it that way.

and also in Quran it has mentioned that a man can only have up to four wives

Only? fuck dude.

Otherwise Polygamy is not approved and is even forbidden for men,and in many cases illegal,and they will face trials for doing it here at least.This is why no one can have multiple wives anymore,since acting completely fair and satisfying everyone is not possible.

That's absolutely false, find me a quote in the Qur'an that says you can't have multiple wives. Saudis have tons of wives, and sex slaves from Europe too. You should read up a bit about it (http://saudhouse.tripod.com/article46.html). Contest the evidence in that article.

About polygamy being illegal, correct me if I'm wrong but you must be from Iran? I see that on your profile (or whatever it's called here :P). Iran has left out elements of the Sharia which go against fundamental elements of Iranian culture, for example, multiple wives. - that was never the culture in Iran, which is why it seems absurd to impose it. Your regime has made changes to the Islamic law to suit Iranian life; Nowroz is still celebrated, women only keep a headscarf rather than the Abayeh etc.

[Left Now]

I don't think they do man. I personally see nothing wrong with kissing in public (as kissing is what you were referring to). You probably don't like it, neither does the Qur'an but the Qur'an is not a moral authority, it's an ancient book.

Yes,kiss your daughter,your mother,your wife,your sister anywhere you like,even if it is your Girlfriend,but not making out.Kissing is different from making out,it is a type of UNLEASHING.

Your idea,and I respect it.

So the conclusion there is, the Qur'an isn't applicable to modern day life, it's a book of its time. Keep it that way.

Actually when it makes conditions according to time,it means it is not a book of past.

Only? fuck dude.

Arabs would have over 10 wives in those times,in Far East Polygamy was even worse,in Iran during Sassanid Era nobles and Dehghans could have several wives,and in Europe Polygamy was not irregular neither...So you believe having 10 wives without conditions was any better than having 4 wives with serious conditions and heavy restrictions to ensure women's rights are preserved?


That's absolutely false, find me a quote in the Qur'an that says you can't have multiple wives. Saudis have tons of wives, and sex slaves from Europe too. You should read up a bit about it. Contest the evidence in that article.

With all respects my friend,but seriously "Keep Hecking Quiet!" when you are talking about Quran to me.I can easily go through every corner of it for you.

Plus+ Apologize for my rude language

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تُقْسِطُواْ فِي الْيَتَامَى فَانكِحُواْ مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء مَثْنَى وَثُلاَثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَلاَّ تَعُولُواْ

وَآتُواْ النَّسَاء صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةً فَإِن طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَن شَيْءٍ مِّنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَّرِيئًا





Nessa,Verses 3 and 4



And if you fear about not paying orphans their rights from your properties properly and justly,marry one or two or three or four of them as your wives,and if you fear not to act justly and fairly to them as your wives,Just marry ONE woman in your life and the women that you have promised to protect them.This is for not Violating.

And give them their "Gifts" as a sign of your noble intention,and if they returned any of their gifts willingly to you,you are permitted to use them



This verse is the only verse in Quran which talks about the number of spouses,and you know what?The 2 verses before verse 3 were about acting justly toward orphans and not violating their rights.And this is why at the first of this verse you can see "orphans".


Also,such an irony that you are using Saudi Arabia as a symbol of Islam,since as I know since the time the Saudis took power in Arabia,they have done nothing except ruining Islam.They are just idiots,sitting on a huge load of oil,nothing else.Thinking they are "True Muslims" and are acting according to Islamic principles only because they so-call themselves "Ideal Figures of Islamic World" and "Servants of Two Shrines" and "Center of Islam",is as unfair and insane to call Crusaders "True Christians" and those who caused death of Jesus of Nezareth "True Jews" and those who are killing Muslims in Myanmar "True Budduhists" and ...

About polygamy being illegal, correct me if I'm wrong but you must be from Iran? I see that on your profile (or whatever it's called here ). Iran has left out elements of the Sharia which go against fundamental elements of Iranian culture, for example, multiple wives. - that was never the culture in Iran, which is why it seems absurd to impose it.

Well,seriously your knowledge about history is not enough my friend,also about our law system.

Polygamy was practiced by Iranians before Islam even in a more extreme way.Not Polygamy,but also Incest Marriage was seriously practiced Since Hakhamaneshis' Era to Sassanid Era too.Like if a man would die,his son should have married his wife (the son's mother),or siblings could marry each others even since Hakhamaneshis' Era.

Also Mazdak,who rose against ideals of Zoroastrian Priesthood of Sassanids,was against Polygamy of Riches and Lack of Wives of Poors.

Since the latter is a standard accusation against heretical sects, its veracity has been doubted by researchers; it is likely that Mazdak took measures against the widespread polygamy of the rich and lack of wives for the poor.

Yarshater 1983

This completely shows that you are not seriously familiar with history my friend,and guess what?You are facing a History Buff Here!So would you please not mess with me when it comes to history and Culture of my own country?

And by the way,no Islam doesn't go against any fundamentals of Iranian Culture.It's also helped them improve themselves through time.Actually it was for Iranian culture that Islam spread through Transoxiana dramatically.

Your regime has made changes to the Islamic law to suit Iranian life; Nowroz is still celebrated, women only keep a headscarf rather than the Abayeh etc.

Well,first of all,it is not my regime;it is the government of most majority of Iranians.Although I myself am against many of its qualities.

Second,the current time for Nowruz was introduced after the foundation of "Solar Hijri Calendar",didn't you know that?It is a part of Iran's culture to celebrate the first day of year and spring,and Islam has done nothing except encouraging people to do it.

And third,I don't understand that thing about Scarf and Abayeh.What is Abayeh anyway?


Such a shame that this place is not for "Debates" I am still busy with my studies for that serious exam which I am going to take exactly 9 days later,but as soon as I get rid of it,I will fully get back to VT and once again become an active member.That time I am ready for more debates and discussions.

By the way,nice to meet you my friend!Welcome to VT!


Mods!Please Forgive me for making a debate in a thread in VT Daily Chronicle!I am terribly sorry.

[Sapehra]

in Iran during Sassanid Era nobles and Dehghans could have several wives,and in Europe Polygamy was not irregular neither...So you believe having 10 wives without conditions was any better than having 4 wives with serious conditions and heavy restrictions to ensure women's rights are preserved?

I assure you, this is the only reason why I say the Qur'an is a book of the past. It made women's lives marginally better than they were before. But considering what we have today, this difference doesn't amount to much. In fact, 4 wives are just as bad as 10. Especially when your wife doesn't have the right to also have more than one partner.

Actually when it makes conditions according to time,it means it is not a book of past.

I don't think I need to address this again.

This verse is the only verse in Quran which talks about the number of spouses,and you know what?The 2 verses before verse 3 were about acting justly toward orphans and not violating their rights.And this is why at the first of this verse you can see "orphans".

And if you fear about not paying orphans their rights from your properties properly and justly,marry one or two or three or four of them as your wives

First of all I'm confused about this verse. Why is the reader obligated to pay orphans? Is it charity? And how does marrying an orphan make their lives better? That's not a good alternative. Sounds like sex slavery if I'm quite honest.

I'll discuss the rest some other time. I'm tired, and it's late here. Nice meeting you too Mr. Alireza

[Left Now]

I assure you, this is the only reason why I say the Qur'an is a book of the past. It made women's lives marginally better than they were before. But considering what we have today, this difference doesn't amount to much. In fact, 4 wives are just as bad as 10. Especially when your wife doesn't have the right to also have more than one partner.



I don't think I need to address this again.



Well,as I said it has left many room for change according to conditions of time.According to current conditions,polygamy is only seriously restrictively legal,and if a man marries two wives without permission and approval of his first wife,he can be sued and fined.

The man cannot have several partners neither,most of these marriages in those times were not for sexual matters,and even right now polygamy is restrictively legal,not freely.


First of all I'm confused about this verse. Why is the reader obligated to pay orphans? Is it charity?

Not charity,but all able family breadwinners are noted in Islam to specialize a part of their yearly savings for aiding families in need and people who cannot afford their lives because of difficult conditions,for example helping them to survive until they be able to earn enough money by themselves.That money should have also be used to free slaves everywhere and anytime in the past,but now that slavery does not exist anymore,it can be used for freeing those who are in jail for debts.

This one is duty,but Charity is something else.

And how does marrying an orphan make their lives better? That's not a good alternative. Sounds like sex slavery if I'm quite honest.

Well,most of remarriages in those times were not primarily and mainly for sexual relationship,but most of the times for providing protection and welfare for the female person and for making the male person responsible to provide the protection and welfare,although they may could end into a real love if they were completely right.Sometimes they were even political,but only a few of them.Many of them would never end in having sexual intercourse neither,specially during Muhammad's own times,and even sometimes after the girl orphan turned into an adult,they could marry another person if they didn't want to stay with their marriage-adopter.

But as I said,now the main reasons for polygamy do not exist anymore,and so it must be illegal without the conditions which I said.

[WanderingHeart]

Okay, maybe the women didn't have to bring religion into this. But even so, whether her religion says that or not, the way the employees acted was very inappropriate and wrong. There is no reason anyone should disagree with that statement.

[Uniquemind]

What and how they reacted wasn't right.


But here comes a question out of left field.


What gives someone the right to ask other people for stuff based on their beliefs, and then blaming them when others deny their request. Not seeing that as equal and fair response, gives more social power to the person who has a specialized lifestyle.


There comes a point where realistically you can't live by your values 100% of the time because you share the world with other people not of your point of view.

If there are things an individual can't do, they should not expect others to cater to them based on beliefs personalized to that individual lifestyle.

You either integrate with society as best you can, or you do your best to live in a bubble.


---

Now this may be compared to catering to the disabled.

So I'm making this distinction:

Beliefs are opted-into and are changeable while disabilities aren't chosen by the individual and therefore are often not changeable. One can argue one holds a belief for pure stubborn selfish reasons resulting in pushy behavior towards others while the latter cannot be argued that way and often has a logical reason for needing sympathy.

That's where the difference resides.