[zakk]

Also, people rarely discuss your financial ability to have children until they feel you've already passed the limit. At which point you should ask them to help you pick which child they think you should give back.

[sally]

Originally Posted by zakk

Um, some scholars say that the verse "And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong." [17:31] also applies to using birth control for financial reasons.

sally, I completely do not understand your post. please explain.

I'm saying that if a couple with or without children is facing financial difficulties and are basically on the streets, for example, then they may possibly disregard the idea of having any(more) kids or put it off for a while until things get better. Isn't that kind of a natural concern, a reflexive thought even? And I don't know how anyone would justify it not being a valid concern. What I'm saying is, maybe we're just not supposed to discuss financial difficulties in depth when considering any(more) children or announce it to everyone? So is it possible that for many couples facing financial hardships, the decision to hold off on having an additional kid or two just goes without saying?

Originally Posted by IbnMardhiyah

Sorry, I forgot to say - if we were arguing from an Islamic standpoint then Shadha's stance would be kinda weak, since we've been taught in Islam that, with kids comes rizq. We [the guys] were only told to marry if we can support a spouse, but we were never told to worry about marrying IF we could support kids as well, no - we were just told to marry, make the effort to have good financial income and the barakah will come and increase with each kid.

But I was speaking from a strictly secular view.


And sally, I'm of the opinion that if your budget is stretched already with X number of kids, the mortgage, the bills, and other financial obligations, and you want to have more kids ... then the man should just MAN. UP. and work to increase his paycheck. That is what's called tying your camel.

The vast majority (over 80%) of men are not like that however.

So now I'm wondering why birth control is even permissible in Islam. I haven't really read much on it so I can't say I know much, but I'm sure there are strict guidelines because wouldn't financial concerns be number one on the list of many Muslim couples?

If a wife didn't think her husbands income could continue supporting an(other) kid, then couldn't she just tell him something like it'd be too much work for her to handle an(other) kid. I don't know. Just thinking out loud. There seems to be a very fine line with these things.

[MossadConspiracy]

Death Reveals Harsh Side of a ‘Model’ in Japan
By NORIMITSU ONISHI

KITAKYUSHU, Japan — In a thin notebook discovered along with a man’s partly mummified corpse this summer was a detailed account of his last days, recording his hunger pangs, his drop in weight and, above all, his dream of eating a rice ball, a snack sold for about $1 in convenience stores across the country.

“3 a.m. This human being hasn’t eaten in 10 days but is still alive,” he wrote. “I want to eat rice. I want to eat a rice ball.”

These were not the last words of a hiker lost in the wilderness, but those of a 52-year-old urban welfare recipient whose benefits had been cut off. And his case was not the first here.

One man has died in each of the last three years in this city in western Japan, apparently of starvation, after his welfare application was refused or his benefits cut off. Unable to buy food, all three men wasted away for months inside their homes, where their bodies were eventually found.

Only the most recent death drew nationwide attention, however, because of the diary, which has embarrassed city officials who initially defended their handling of the case and even described it as “model.”

In a way that the words of no living person could, the diary has shown the human costs of the economic transformation in Japan. As a widening income gap has pushed up welfare rolls in recent years, struggling cities like Kitakyushu have been under intense pressure to tighten eligibility.

The fallout from the most recent death has shown just how far the authorities in Kitakyushu went to achieve a flat welfare rate.

Japan has traditionally been hard on welfare recipients, and experts say this city’s practices are common to many other local governments. Applicants are expected to turn to their relatives or use up their savings before getting benefits. Welfare is considered less of an entitlement than a shameful handout.

“Local governments tend to believe that using taxpayer money to help people in need is doing a disservice to citizens,” said Hiroshi Sugimura, a professor specializing in welfare at Hosei University in Tokyo. “To them, those in need are not citizens. Only those who pay taxes are citizens.”

Toshihiko Misaki, head of the city’s welfare section, did not refer to the three deaths as from starvation, but called them “solitary.” He defended the system.

“On the one hand, there are people who’ve done their utmost to remain standing on their own feet,” Mr. Misaki said. “On the other hand, there are those who’ve gotten into trouble because they’ve led idle lives and are now receiving welfare. That’s taxpayers’ money. We get criticized by people who are trying their best, so we have to find the right balance.”

With no religious tradition of charity, Japan has few soup kitchens or other places for the indigent. Those that exist — run frequently by Christian missionaries from South Korea or Japan’s tiny Christian population — cater mostly to the homeless.

Like the diarist, the other two men were sickly, and they seemingly starved after their applications for welfare were rejected. One, 68, was found lying face down in his apartment, where the gas and electricity had been cut off half a year earlier.

The man reportedly told neighbors that he had been denied benefits even though he had prostrated himself before a city official. At his death, he had lost about a third of his weight and had only a few dollars.

The application of the third man, 56, was rejected twice even though a city worker trying to collect an unpaid water bill reported seeing him weak and crawling on his apartment floor. Neighbors who last saw him said his legs had withered to the size of bamboo poles. His mummified corpse was discovered four months after his death.

Between 2000 and 2006, as Japan’s welfare rate grew to 1.18 percent from 0.84 percent, Kitakyusha’s rate grew microscopically — to 1.28 percent from 1.26 percent. That ranked it toward the bottom among major cities even though its economy was doing poorly.

To the central government — which bears 75 percent of welfare costs, began cutting benefits in 2003 and plans to rein in more — that made the city a model.

“We were the so-called honor student,” Mr. Misaki said in an interview.

He added: “Other cities came here to learn from us — how we did things. And the Welfare Ministry also showcased Kitakyushu’s methods.”

Applicants first had to undergo an interview with a welfare official who then decided whether to hand them a one-page application form. In 80 percent of the cases here, applicants could not obtain a form.

After becoming ill and unable to work as a day laborer, another man, 56-year-old Hiroki Nishiyama, tried to apply for benefits twice last year but was told by the same city official to turn to his relatives for help.

“He was arrogant, his way of speaking,” Mr. Nishiyama said. “He was like, ‘What do you want? Go home quickly.’”

Desperate, eating only bread for months, Mr. Nishiyama tried to hang himself. He finally qualified for benefits this year after calling a hot line run by Tateyasu Takaki, a human rights lawyer who helps the needy apply. He hopes to resume working.

“This is, after all, shameful for me,” he said of the $930 he receives monthly.

In response to the deaths of the first two men, the city this spring made applications available inside interview rooms, though it is still expected that the interviewer hands out the form. It stopped short of placing them next to other forms by reception desks. But a policy of removing recipients from the rolls as quickly as possible went unchanged. The diarist, a former taxi driver, qualified last December after receiving diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure and a bad liver brought on by alcohol abuse. He lived in a dilapidated row house whose walls and roof had partly collapsed. Electricity and gas had been cut off.

According to city documents, the man’s case worker began pressing him to find a job within weeks of his receiving benefits. Tadashi Inagaki, a professor at the University of Kitakyushu who is leading a committee to investigate the three deaths, said the case worker’s goal, in keeping with the welfare office’s practice, was to get the man off welfare within six months.

Three months after he started receiving benefits, the man signed a form saying he no longer needed welfare. The city said it was voluntary, but an entry in his diary belies that. Writing that he was about to start looking for work, he added: “I was just about to give it a try when they cut me off. Are they telling the needy to die as quickly as possible?”

Takaharu Fujiyabu, a former case worker here who is now a lecturer at the University of Kitakyushu, said the city’s 142 case workers, each handling 73 recipients, must remove five a year from welfare. Promotions are tied to the quota, he added.

Mr. Misaki, the head of the welfare section, said that the link to promotions existed about 15 years ago but added they were no longer tied. He said the quotas would be eliminated next year.

In his first year as a case worker, Mr. Fujiyabu recalled, a woman in her 50s, smelling of alcohol, asked for assistance. “I was told by my supervisor, ‘You know, don’t you think someone like that is better off dead?’”

Perhaps out of shame, the man with the diary did not turn to his relatives or neighbors for help, even though he had lived all his life on the block.

“2 a.m. My belly’s empty,” he wrote on May 25, some 45 days after his benefits were cut. “I want to fill my belly with rice balls.”

He added: “Weight is also down from 68 kilograms to 54 kilograms” — from 150 pounds to 119.

In front of the man’s abandoned home, people have left flowers and a can of grapefruit-flavored alcohol.

“Now I’m filled with regret,” said Yoshikazu Okubo, 65, a neighbor who remembered playing with the dead man when they were boys. “If he had just asked me for one drink, I would have said, ‘Sure, drink up, then.’”

But the dead man’s next-door neighbor, Yoshiaki Kita, 72, said the city had handled his case appropriately.

“He may have starved to death, but I believe he reaped what he sowed,” Mr. Kita said. “He was still young, so he could have taken on any job to feed himself.”

Mr. Kita — who had once seen corpses in his job as a general contractor — had guessed from the stench that his neighbor had died. He had watched swallows fly out of the broken house with greenbottle flies in their beaks.

A friend found the dead man’s corpse on July 10, long after his last diary entry on June 5. In his diary, the man dreamed of rice balls to the end. To most Japanese, rice balls, which are now sold in convenience stores, were traditionally a snack that mothers usually made by hand: a ball of rice, wrapped in seaweed with perhaps a red plum buried inside, to be eaten during a hiking trip or some other pleasant activity.

“My belly’s empty,” read the diary’s last entry. “I want to eat a rice ball. I haven’t eaten rice in 25 days.”

read this, its relevant

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by sally

So now I'm wondering why birth control is even permissible in Islam. I haven't really read much on it so I can't say I know much, but I'm sure there are strict guidelines because wouldn't financial concerns be number one on the list of many Muslim couples?

Health reasons are one. Financial reasons are another.

And the scholars who do allow birth control, whether natural or assisted, almost all of them I've seen add on reminders to the effect that if Allaah intends for the couple to have a child, then qadrallah it'll happen, regardless of whether you've used coitus interruptus or anything else.

[Arabesque]

Just a thought: why should it be about numbers? Couples should have as many kids as they can care for and give equal attention to. It's not easy to raise kids, especially if you have both parents working full time. Even if the mother wasn't working, it's still tough. Having to be involved in each and every child's life is not something most parents do anyway.

It's either you have many kids or have a few kids, who are healthy (physically and emotionally), I think.

[sally]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

[...]Teen moms are usually good moms. [...]

All of these arguments are just aimed at deflecting blame away from those who caused the problems and shifting it onto the victims.

Really good post. I just started googling stuff randomly when I read that teen mother thing and found the following interesting findings:

Motherhood lessens teen delinquency, study shows

Study Challenges Public Notions of Promiscuity and Teen Motherhood "* None of the girls mentioned welfare as an incentive for having a child."

Teen motherhood doesn’t increase welfare costs "Teen mothers who receive welfare are part of a disadvantaged group likely to receive welfare at some point in their life whether they have children before age 18 or later, Hotz’s research shows. However, by their later 20s and early 30s these mothers actually earn more than if they had delayed having children, because their children are older and the teen mothers are able to work more hours."

Slightly different from this thread but ultimately about welfare. Apparently not only do the mothers end up giving back to the society, but they've got a kid or two or three who have potential to become decent contributers also.

[zzze]

asslamau alaykum

[zakk]

Look, Allah provides sustenance. Your job and your work has no bearing on your rizq. Even the money that seems to come from your efforts is actually from Allah, who could have made all your effort be for nothing at all.

Our reliance is not on our wealth, parents, marriage, health, education, or ability. These are all things which can only benefit us if Allah allows them to do so. Yes, we try to cultivate these things as best as we can, but we should always always do so understanding that these things are just a means through which Allah provides our rizq, and that He can also provide without these things. Many times we continue to stay in a dire state because we fail to recognize the ways in which Allah is supporting us, and create a destructive cycle which causes us to panic and keep failing instead of finding peace and solutions in Allah's mercy.

Also, Allah can change our condition in an instant, and we still have to cope with sabr and shukr. You can't give back your kids because you can no longer afford them, similarly if you do have kids when you are poor, then you MUST remember that Allah doesn't burden us, ever. We burden ourselves by thinking we are incapable of handling our difficulties. Which goes back to the whole destructive cycle thing.

[zakk]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Just a thought: why should it be about numbers? Couples should have as many kids as they can care for and give equal attention to. It's not easy to raise kids, especially if you have both parents working full time. Even if the mother wasn't working, it's still tough. Having to be involved in each and every child's life is not something most parents do anyway.

It's either you have many kids or have a few kids, who are healthy (physically and emotionally), I think.

I've noticed that people who care about raising emotionally and physically healthy children will try and succeed for the most part in doing so whether they have 2 kids or 7.

And people who don't feel like making an effort usually have a hard time devoting time to even one child.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by zakk

I've noticed that people who care about raising emotionally and physically healthy children will try and succeed for the most part in doing so whether they have 2 kids or 7.

And people who don't feel like making an effort usually have a hard time devoting time to even one child.

I think numbers matter. But I could be wrong. It's just an opinion.

No matter how much time you devote to each child, it's not going to be the same as having two kids as opposed to 7. You have two kids, you devote more to each. You have 7 kids (and we are 7 siblings at home), parents will naturally pay more attention to the younger ones, thinking the older ones are mature enough to take care of themselves. Maybe they can take care of themselves physically, but emotionally, they're still young and in need of attention. It's difficult to handle, no matter what.

[shadha]

Ibn: Tax is a part of every civilized society, and part of tax is used to support social services. Everyone knows this and understands this. Those poor people also give back to society, but it doesn't HAVE to be commensurate with what society is giving to them in the first place, because then you'd be comparing apples and oranges.

As I said before, I have no problem with taxes that go towards social services. Yes, society is about building itself up together, in your words collective strength, however, it is not collective strength when there is an abuse of the system. Is there much that can be done about it? Yes, however, that means that many other aspects of the government/law will have to be changed. Many. Unlike myself, not everyone is willing for that to be done, hence why the systems continue to be misused, either by abuse or not reaching those who need it.

Mossad: And yes, the entire tone you've been using to describe poor people has been negative, including that comment above. You are looking down on them just by presuming that its appropriate for you to judge when they should or shouldnt have children. You look down on them by dismissing or invalidating all of the multitude of motives that they may have for having children. You look down on them by portraying them as irresponsible for having children, etc etc etc. Pretty much everything you've written in this topic

Yes, I do believe it is irresponsible to have children that you can't afford. Now, if some are offended by that, I'm sorry but that's what I believe. I am in the same category I speak of [our parents wealth is not our wealth]- desiring children but not being able to afford children. If I wanted to, yeah I could have a child or children, but that would mean that the state would have to burden the expense [or that we both would just be working extreme hours etc, but roll with me]. I won't do that. I believe that there are other families out there who 'deserve' the money more than I do, and that I shouldn't take from them when I can prevent it.

Now, if it ends up that there comes a point, InshaAllah, when we can afford children and we do have children but God forbid, we are later put into a situation where we can not meet our financial needs. Then as Ibn said, the collective society concept will come into play. Bringing those who are down up. But while I'm down, I would not further complicate matters by having more children. That is the point I have been making from the start. Taking responsibility and accountability.

Life does go on yes, but not everyone shares the same luxuries. Having a child is a luxury. With children comes responsibilities and I do not believe it is just to intentionally push those responsibilities onto others.

Yes, we should always turn to Allah, swt, but we should also exercise commonsense with our actions. One day we can be rich, not even the next day but rather the next moment we can be poor. Allahu Alim, either way we shouldn't stab ourselves in the foot and hand.


shadha-

[IbnMardhiyah]

I agree with zakk - if the parents are committed, then they will personify the statement of "Where there's a will, there's a way."

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by shadha

Is there much that can be done about it? Yes, however, that means that many other aspects of the government/law will have to be changed. Many.

Like what? You're going to forcibly sterilize people if their financial situation isn't up to spec?

Jailing them or taking the kids away via CAS would be the same or an even more intense iteration of the problem you're talking about, which I still believe isn't substantial enough to warrant such concern.

Unlike myself, not everyone is willing for that to be done, hence why the systems continue to be misused, either by abuse or not reaching those who need it.

So, you're telling us that you're going into lobbying or even local government and intend on changing policy?