Wife's Obedience to Husband

[ChotooMotoo]

Jaysh said

It is as absurd as saying "I don't tell myself 'obey Allah's Messenger'...'obeying' comes naturally to me."

How is that absurd? No really, do you wake up every day and force yourself to pray, and I mean REALLY force yourself like "oh man, I have to quit playing Civ IV now becuase azan got called and I HAVE to obey azan. Dude what a bummer" or do you just automatically say your prayers?

When you see pork Keilbasa at the fair do you think "Oh man, I really want to eat that but I can't becuase I have to obey my religion. Sucks" or do you just ignore it without a second though and order the fish n' chips instead?

When your woman makes you mad because she burned your dinner, do you think "stupid woman. I would love to slap her stupid face off, but Prophet Muhammad (saw) told us to be good to our wives. Rules rules rules" or do you just smile and sweetly say "Oh honey, it's bound to happen now and then. Even the best cooks make mistakes sometimes, don't worry about it, we can eat eggs and toast for dinner"

You're not a little kid anymore. You go to the bathroom on your own without fighting your mom, who doesn't even need to say "Jaysh, it's time to go to the potty. Put down your toys and go to the potty. I've already told you three times, now do it" You should be conditioned to obey by now without a second thought.

I use the kid example becuase kids have to be taught to obey.

[Timbit]

i would think those in authority over you means... the state.
as in, don't commit treason. you know, obey the laws of the land and whatnot.
kinda like in the bible... render unto caesar, etc.

so, rulers, yes. but scholars?
how does a scholar have any authority over me? i don't live in a theocracy and i haven't given bayah to anybody.

so, i dunno, man... your fifth point is pretty circular.

[Jaysh]

Timbit said

i would think those in authority over you means... the state.
as in, don't commit treason. you know, obey the laws of the land and whatnot.
kinda like in the bible... render unto caesar, etc.

so, rulers, yes. but scholars?
how does a scholar have any authority over me? i don't like in a theocracy and i haven't given bayah to anybody.

so, i dunno, man... your fifth point is pretty circular.

My fifth point is not that the verse can be used for husbands over wives, since that was mere speculation on my part...Rather, my fifth point was that the verse uses the same word as used in the hadeeth, and therefore the word is "obey." Sister Salika had countered this by saying that the the verse and hadeeth cannot be compared since we all agree that obeying Allah is different than obeying a person. However, this point is refuted by the fact that the verse says to obey those human beings in authority. So even if we agree that the verse is only talking about the state, then this is enough to prove that the word used in the hadeeth is none other than "obey."

[Timbit]

i'm talking about your remark about the verse itself being a proof.
pure speculation, not mere.

edit: isn't speculating about the qur'an against your religion?

[Salika]

Jaysh said

A bunch of horribly weak arguments here.

It's all about the argument with you, isnt it?

First: Allah [swt] knew and knows and the connotations of the words He chooses, and those He commands His Messenger [s] to say.

I've never seen "obey" in the Qur'an. Yutee3, yes.. "obey" not so much...

Second: The word "Jihad" has a bad connotation today. This does not mean we can stop using it. Rather, we educate the people on the meaning of the term, remove the misconceptions, etc.

1. Jihad is an Arabic word used directly by Allah. 2. I never suggested such a thing.. why are you bringing up irrelevant things?

Third: What do you say of these two hadeeths:

If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anything other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad,no woman will fulfill her duty towards her Lord unless she fulfills her duty towards her husband....

(Hadeeth reported by Ibn Maajah, 1843; see also Saheeh al-Jaami�, 5239, 5295)

It is not right for any human being to prostrate to another; if it were right for one human being to prostrate to another, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands because of the great rights that they have over them. By the One in Whose hand is my soul, if a man were covered from head to foot with weeping sores oozing pus, and his wife were to come to him and lick his sores (to clean them), this would not fulfil the rights he has over her.

(Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 12153; Saheeh al-Jaami�, 7725).

Do you get any "bad connotations" there?

Let's stick to the issue here, please.

Fourth: Jihad can be abused by some men. Does this mean we stop using the word or teaching it?

Again, let's stick to the issue.

Fifth: You argue that the verse that uses the word "obey" is not analagous since that is obedience to Allah (God) and not a human being, and the two differ. This is a very weak argument, since the verse reads:

"Obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority above you..."

So Allah [swt] says in this verse to obey those HUMAN BEINGS in authority above you, including rulers, scholars, etc. Therefore, this verse is totally comparable, and one wonders if this verse itself could be used as a proof, since the husband has authority over his wife.

That did not address my point at all. I was NOT trying to say "the the verse and hadeeth cannot be compared since we all agree that obeying Allah is different than obeying a person." You're clearly not getting my point so there's no point in discussing this with you.

It is as absurd as saying "I don't tell myself 'obey Allah's Messenger'...'obeying' comes naturally to me."

I have a fitra.

Cry me a river.

Fi Aman Allah

Why do you bother telling people "Fi Aman Allah" if you're a jerk in the rest of your post?

Anyways, I'm going to refrain from reading your posts because I might say something I'll regret and be held accountable for it. I may also go politely ask my husband to command me to not read your posts.

[Jaysh]

Salika said

It's all about the argument with you, isnt it?

Baseless accusation. It is about the truth to me.

I've never seen "obey" in the Qur'an. Yutee3, yes.. "obey" not so much...

OK, Allah [swt] commands us with regard to salat. Can someone claim that I believe in salat but not prayer?

Why do you bother telling people "Fi Aman Allah" if you're a jerk in the rest of your post?

How in the world was I a jerk? What did I say that was jerky? Is saying "these are horribly weak arguments" being a jerk? Did I insult you in any of my post? Meanwhile, it is you who has levied indirect accusations against my personality, whereas I have only dealt with the issue at hand.

Fi Aman Allah

ChotooMotoo said

How is that absurd? No really, do you wake up every day and force yourself to pray, and I mean REALLY force yourself like "oh man, I have to quit playing Civ IV now becuase azan got called and I HAVE to obey azan. Dude what a bummer" or do you just automatically say your prayers?

When you see pork Keilbasa at the fair do you think "Oh man, I really want to eat that but I can't becuase I have to obey my religion. Sucks" or do you just ignore it without a second though and order the fish n' chips instead?

When your woman makes you mad because she burned your dinner, do you think "stupid woman. I would love to slap her stupid face off, but Prophet Muhammad (saw) told us to be good to our wives. Rules rules rules" or do you just smile and sweetly say "Oh honey, it's bound to happen now and then. Even the best cooks make mistakes sometimes, don't worry about it, we can eat eggs and toast for dinner"

You're not a little kid anymore. You go to the bathroom on your own without fighting your mom, who doesn't even need to say "Jaysh, it's time to go to the potty. Put down your toys and go to the potty. I've already told you three times, now do it" You should be conditioned to obey by now without a second thought.

I use the kid example becuase kids have to be taught to obey.

I tell myself "Obey Allah and His Messenger" all the time...whenever I want to do something and "Allah and His Messenger" forbade it. For example, if there is a really good-looking non-Muslim girl then I don't incline towards her, even though I wish I could. Instead, I tell myself "we hear and we obey."

And yes, I tell myself that the Prophet [s] told us to be careful with our wives, which would cause me to increase my softness towards her. I do not think that the Prophet's instructions are in vain and useless. I do not think he was blabbing nonsense. Rather, I believe that if the Prophet [s] was so keen on warning the Sahabah on this issue, then surely I shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that I don't need to reminder also.

Fi Aman Allah

[Khairan]

Jaysh said

My fifth point is not that the verse can be used for husbands over wives, since that was mere speculation on my part...Rather, my fifth point was that the verse uses the same word as used in the hadeeth, and therefore the word is "obey." Sister Salika had countered this by saying that the the verse and hadeeth cannot be compared since we all agree that obeying Allah is different than obeying a person. However, this point is refuted by the fact that the verse says to obey those human beings in authority. So even if we agree that the verse is only talking about the state, then this is enough to prove that the word used in the hadeeth is none other than "obey."

Salaams,

I missed some of these earlier posts you're referring to, but regarding the use of the word "obey" a similar thought occurred to me as what Salika apparently said.

Namely: the word "obey" is used both to refer to man's relationship with God AND man's relationship with those who are in authority above him. This implies (or so it seems to me) that while the word MEANS the same thing, it has nuances which are dependent upon context. Why do I think so? Because we clearly have a different relationship with God than we do with human authority figures, and therefore the word clearly cannot imply exactly the same relationship between leader and follower in all its uses.

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything -- more to the point, this makes me think that there is a layer of meaning and connotation to the word in question which changes depending on the relationships involved (if that makes sense ).

Anyway, I'm not sure this practically changes the issues at hand, but I thought I'd mention it since it seems this is largely a semantic argument wherein we are trying to pin down the meaning of a word.

As I've said before, I think that this is actually a fairly common sense issue. The guy is the head of the house, and it is both his right and his responsibility to make decisions for the family. That said, he also has a duty to make his wife happy and treat her well, and given that both of these issues must be balanced against each other I think it's clear that Islam does not permit authoritarian relationships in which one spouse must remain unhappily subservient to the other. It also seems most people here (guys and girls) agree with this, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

[ChotooMotoo]

Khairan said

As I've said before, I think that this is actually a fairly common sense issue. The guy is the head of the house, and it is both his right and his responsibility to make decisions for the family. That said, he also has a duty to make his wife happy and treat her well, and given that both of these issues must be balanced against each other I think it's clear that Islam does not permit authoritarian relationships in which one spouse must remain unhappily subservient to the other. It also seems most people here (guys and girls) agree with this, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

We obey Allah (swt) (or at least I hope we try to) but Allah (swt) is not obliged to be kind to us, make us happy etc., there is no balance. Just wanted to point that out.

Arguing to argue, there is no point.

[Jaysh]

Khairan said

Salaams,

I missed some of these earlier posts you're referring to, but regarding the use of the word "obey" a similar thought occurred to me as what Salika apparently said.

Namely: the word "obey" is used both to refer to man's relationship with God AND man's relationship with those who are in authority above him. This implies (or so it seems to me) that while the word MEANS the same thing, it has nuances which are dependent upon context. Why do I think so? Because we clearly have a different relationship with God than we do with human authority figures, and therefore the word clearly cannot imply exactly the same relationship between leader and follower in all its uses.

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything -- more to the point, this makes me think that there is a layer of meaning and connotation to the word in question which changes depending on the relationships involved (if that makes sense ).

Anyway, I'm not sure this practically changes the issues at hand, but I thought I'd mention it since it seems this is largely a semantic argument wherein we are trying to pin down the meaning of a word.

As I've said before, I think that this is actually a fairly common sense issue. The guy is the head of the house, and it is both his right and his responsibility to make decisions for the family. That said, he also has a duty to make his wife happy and treat her well, and given that both of these issues must be balanced against each other I think it's clear that Islam does not permit authoritarian relationships in which one spouse must remain unhappily subservient to the other. It also seems most people here (guys and girls) agree with this, so I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

Khairan, I am not arguing that a woman has to obey a husband in the same way she has to obey Allah [swt]. Even though Allah [swt] says: "Obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority..." We do not say that a person is to obey all three in the same way! Rather, obedience to each is in a different way. Nonetheless, all three are to be obeyed albeit in a different manner.

[Khairan]

ChotooMotoo said

We obey Allah (swt) (or at least I hope we try to) but Allah (swt) is not obliged to be kind to us, make us happy etc., there is no balance. Just wanted to point that out.

Arguing to argue, there is no point.

Well, this is getting into kind of a complicated issue but I while I agree with your word choice that God is not *obliged* to be kind to us (He is not obliged to do anything at all), nevertheless He WILL be kind and just to us because that is what God has promised to all those who ask it of Him.

So, although I think you're not incorrect in your phrasing, in reality one can be far more certain of kindness from God -- even though He isn't obliged -- than one can ever be of the kindness of another person.

Jaysh said

Khairan, I am not arguing that a woman has to obey a husband in the same way she has to obey Allah [swt]. Even though Allah [swt] says: "Obey Allah and His Messenger and those in authority..." We do not say that a person is to obey all three in the same way! Rather, obedience to each is in a different way. Nonetheless, all three are to be obeyed albeit in a different manner.

Yeah bro, I do understand that. What I'm trying to say is that the nature of the relationship between the "obeyer" and the "obeyee" if you will changes depending on the context, despite the word being the same. It seems to me -- maybe I'm wrong -- that people who are arguing about the word "obey" and its meaning are trying to flush out the context of the word and its implications about relationships, rather than denying the fundamental relationship between man and wife which is espoused by the Qur'an.

Or, in other words, I think that people who have issue with the word as it is used in English feel that, even though it's the SAME word, the relationship it describes is not the same and therefore strict reliance on "obey" does not accurately describe the rights and responsibilities of those involved.

For myself, my position is as stated above. I think all of this debate about the nature of the word and its meaning is besides the point (though important in an academic sense and for the sake of precision) because the relationship we are to cultivate in marriage is fairly obvious and common sense.

[wheelworks]

Yay! Nitpicking FTW! donchaknow

[the_wrong_guy]

Contributing to this discussion has been disastrous for me, and I therefore hope to make this my last post here.

- I disagree with the view held by many classical scholars who interpreted the texts to imply that man is superior to woman, and also with their speculations about the possible reasons for this superiority (including man's superior intellect). I find no proof in support of such views. I prefer the methodology adopted by those classical scholars who used the word "qeela" ("it was said" - in spite of being aware of who said it) while quoting such views, implying that it is not necessarily the correct interpretation and they do not necessarily agree with it. I tend to agree with the interpretation that the texts hint at man's additional responsibility, which is to be understood in light of the complex dynamic of the relationship - especially since it involves one partner being responsible for providing for the entire family. I am more influenced by the statements of certain major figures from the first few generations of Muslims, who emphasized equity in the relationship.

- Regardless of however one wishes to translate it, I mentioned what "taa'ah" to the husband entails (according to the Fuqaha) in my previous post. It is clear that it is very different from a dictatorial-submissive relationship.

- Khairan, my treatment of this discussion has been purely academic. I completely agree that rules and regulations have little relevance in a relationship based on love and mercy.

- Timbit, no matter how you put it, I fail to see a power imbalance in the "amir" concept. The Prophet(saw) said: “Three people should not go fourth without appointing one of them to be their leader.” (Bayhaqi, Abdur Razzaq) This is a general command intended for all situations. Two or more people are a group/jama'ah according to sound Ahadith, and a group must have an "amir." It is the responsibility of every "amir" to reach decisions (in matters affecting the group) through a process of mutual consultation.

- Management and decision-making within the family has to be through mutual consultation. Allah says: “Let each of you accept the advice of the other in a just way.” (65:6)

- The purpose of the "amir" is not to put one person in authority over the other; rather what it implies is that there should be some delineation of responsibility in the group.

- There is no room for the husband to use his position as the "amir" in the family to impose himself on his wife. The Prophet(saw) said: "Whenever God makes a man responsible for other people, whether in greater or lesser numbers, he will be questioned as to whether he ruled his charges in accordance with God’s decrees or not. And that will not be all. God will question him even about his family members." (Ahmad: Musnad Abdullah bin Umar(r))

- You're right Khairan. My entire point in this thread has been about flushing out a certain context that has come to be associated with the word "obey."

- I also wonder about the implications of the Hadith "None of you (truly) believes, until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself" in an Islamic marriage.

- I plan on approaching some of our leading Ulema and students with the question I raised towards the end of my last post.

[Jamroll]

Kneel before zod!

[Azamnoor]

Tanasi said

Dude you are one sick puppy, but if y'all like to play rough more power to you.

So does your wife get to "tap" you with your shoes?

If no one understood, I was killing the joke with Chotoo from i think pae 49

[sally]

sumiyia said

wow. after reading some of the posts in this thread, alh x 89203859089305 for my husband and his awesomeness.

BUT DOES YOUR HUSBAND HAVE GHEERAH?

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL I just started an old-new war.