arranged marriage

Thanks(0)

Quote

Topic: arranged marriage
Posted: 06 August 2008 at 9:54pm

S.A. you say marrying a woman working is essentially the same thing as a woman who is with a guy for his money. You say these two are the same I say these are different I thought I explained myself on why I consider these two different you don't accept that explanation so we can leave it right there.

What a childish thing to say! I thought this was a mature discussion!

LOL. It was a subtle joke. I apologize for not putting emoticons there.

Chrysalis

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2033

Post Options

Quote Chrysalis

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 06 August 2008 at 10:48am

Israfil wrote:

I said:

Although I have no problem with each individual having thier own personal preferences when choosing a spouse, I disagree with ppl/men who think it is a woman/wife's obligation to earn, contribute financially. Its ok if due to personal circumstances or preferences, an individual desires a financially stable wife. . . but they shouldnt defend it as a norm, or the way to go. Infact, if thier wives work, they should take it as extra help or good-will on thier part. . . not as thier right.

You Said:

Chrysalis fine you disagree but these are my preferences. Don't worry you don't have to marry me,

What a childish thing to say! I thought this was a mature discussion!

but respect the fact that these are my personal standards. Yes these are unIslamic so-to-speak but God knows my intentions on why I have these beliefs.

I think Israfil, that I already stated in my previous post, that I'm ok with ppl's personal preferences with regards to choosing a spouse - whatever they may be, as long as they are reasonable. Why you think that I'm disrespecting you is beyond me. Infact, I took care to not even adderess you directly - when giving my opinions. Which is why I have not been commenting on your personal preferences, but the general notions of some men. Hence I never gave a personal comment on you or how your preferences are 'unislamic' etc etc. I thought we were having a rational, general discussion here.

Also, just wanted to point out, that wanting a wife who is financially independent is not exactly 'unislamic'. True, Islam lays the brunt of Financial Responsibilities (pulling her wieght as well as his own) on the Man, but that doesnt mean that if a couple are sharing expenses, it is unislamic! As long as both the spouses mutually decide to do whatever with regards to finances . . . nothing Islamically wrong with it. It only becomes unislamic if a husband forces, expects, pressurizes his wife into sharing HIS responsibilities. . . and shirks his own. Even if the woman is a breadwinner - due to her own free will, NOTHING wrong with it Islamically.

I will agree that historically, socially, relgiiously and all other categories of life women do encounter a lot more adversity than men I will give you that and many times I tip my hat to the brave women who endure this but don't give me this whinning explanation that because of this this is only right women are relieved of the financial burden. That is a poor excuse and defense to what you are saying.

Whos whining about financial responsibilities here? Not the women. If there is a tad bit of whining here, its in your posts of 'why should I have to be the breadwinner' . . . and yes, I think thats about the only part where I pointed at you personally.

Also, dont be contradictory. . .you salute women for encountering more adversity than men, yet STILL expect them to 'prove themselves' by bieng financially independent. 'Braves' get priveleges. . . and since they have to encounter adversities in some areas, they deserve to sit back in other areas.

Also, dont you think its unfair that Men get to shift thier share of the work (earning) onto the women, but even if the women wanted to, they cannot shift thier burdens (childbearing/nursing) on the man?

If we were to draw a table of the burdens males have to bear versus females (humans) . . . we would see that females have to go thru more. Hence Allah put the 'finances' part in the coloumn of the Man, to even things out - Equity.

This is the way I look at it . . .

Your ancestors toiled the American earth . . . not you. So why do you expect to benefit from what your ancestors did? To every man the fruit of his own action.

You cannot apply this analogy to women, and say that they should not expect priveleges for what they go through. If I were to say that my ancestors went through childbirth, nursing, menstruation etc, and we modern women dont . . .you could use this e.g. But since each and every woman goes through all the above (and more), she can expect priveleges, since she herself went through all this - and not just her ancestors. Hope u get my point.

If anything a woman should be relieved of financial burden when she is carrying the child during those 9 months.

How gracious you sound!

FYI womanhood and its accompanying package does not last a mere 9 months.

I'm sure there are hardowrking women who would love to not have to worry about their own bills anf finances but I'm sure they also appreciate working hard having to provide not only for themselves but for their lovedones be it single moms or whole families.

So who's disrespecting those women? Are you saying that just because some women have to work/worry about thier finances - all women should also be doing the same - just out of 'respect' ?

I could use the same e.g and say that men who are not sole-breadwinners are a disrespect to those who, like u say 'bust thier bottoms' for thier families and are sole earners?

Like I said these are criterias I have for myself. Trust me a male female ratio of 10 to 1 I'm sur eI'd have no problem eventually finding the one I want who understands where I'm coming from.

Inshalah Brother . . . however, like I said before - your personal preferences have nothing to do with this. 'Just arguing with your general view that 'in order to prove thier worth, women should be helping with finances, and only then are they respect-worthy'. If this was just something that you restricted to you and your spouse, I wouldnt have an issue.

Edited by Chrysalis - 06 August 2008 at 10:53am

"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."

Shasta'sAunt View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Female
Joined: 29 March 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1930

Post Options

Quote Shasta'sAunt

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 06 August 2008 at 7:08am

Israfil wrote:

Shasta'sAunt wrote:

Israfil, I don't have to "think" you said you would not marry a woman who wasn't working and paying half the bills. You have stated this on numerous occasions. I am not trying to manipulate your words, I am just reminding you of what you have stated. I am sure you know that you have stated this on numerous occasions, on one occasion you even stated that Allah knows your reasons for not following Islam in this matter.

I still do not see a difference between you refusing to marry a woman who is financially independent, financially stable, and willing to work and any woman anywhere refusing to marry a man who is financially independent, financially stable, and willing to work.

Other than gender, what exactly is the difference?

"The criteria of a person marrying someone else fort their finances is not an altruistic trait its about selfishness."

These are your words, yet you yourself base your choice of mate on their finances. You will not marry a woman who does not work or take financial responsibility for her share of the bills. 50-50 as you stated in one post.

S.A.,

For the purpose of accuracy you ought to specify what I said so that you don't assume what you think I said. I did not say I need a woman to make a certain amount of money. That is false. I never said or will say she needs to be financially wealthy. That is false. What I did say is she need sto come into the situation already pulling her own weight and does not need me to oull her own weight. Essentially this is not an Islamic marriage in the economical sense but I wouldn't be the first one. There are millions of working professional Muslim couples both contributing to household finances. Many couples with successful families who are working and also contributing to the welfare of family. when I speak on matters like this I'm only taking into the consideration that when I provide for my family that, it is important that my partner helps with additional expenses. This is a 50% deal here just as with taking care of the family. When referring to women who are materialistic in nature and who only go after men with money these are the women who are not thinking about securing the offspring but getting what they can get. Most of these women don't even have children with their mates (some do however). Like I said previously these two circumstances are different. We all live by certain standards and I wouldn't consider my standards selfish since essentially if I'm talking about being a contributor to the household/family as well. For the record and I say again it is not about how much she makes but the fact that she is already independent and pulling her own weight. There are many scenarios I could give as to why this is a logical foundation I live by.

I never said that you said a woman had to make a certain amount of money.

What I said was that throughout this thread you have stated that any woman who marries a man based on his finances is materialistic and a "gold digger".

You have repeatedly, through numerous threads, posted that you yourself would not marry a woman who wasn't working, would not continue working, and had to pay half of the bills: "pulling her own weight".

This is marrying a woman based on her finances whether you want to admit it or not. If you will not marry someone unless she meets a certain financial requirement then you are marrying based on finances. The exact same thing.

Whether it is to give future generations the best chance at survival or it is because you want to have a certain life style in S. California is beside the point. It is still choosing a mate based on finances.

�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:26pm

abuayisha wrote:

Likely much of the 'I want this or that' in a relationship is youthful idealism which falls by the wayside once the heart is struck. Seeing that I'm in Los Angele, hopefully Israfil will invite me to his wedding.

Ha, after reading this not likely... I don't find it 'youthful idealism' if I have personal preferences. We as human beings have wants and desires and of course certain wants and desires are unrealistic, but mines aren't unrealistic, but rather logical. Being a fellow Angeleno I'd expect you to understand but I guess not.

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:24pm

Hayfa wrote:

As stated, rarely is money the sole criteria for marriage. But a person's abiliy to support themselves or contribute is some way is a factor.

Israfil, you have stated you would prefer a wife who can / wants to contribulte financially. That is ONE of your criteria. Maybe you are the selfish one for pursuing the career(s) you've chosen and the location thus forcing your partner to have to work.

Is it unreasonable for a person or her family to want someone who works and can provide? Yes omney is not the be all and end all of life but having a few dollars sure makes life a little easier.

I would think that it is good that women are not only thinking of themselves but the offspring they will produce. Love is grand until you cannot eat. There is enough choice among people that peopel can choose what level. In fact, a "gold-digger" would not be looking after their offspring or te future. For being able to provide is but one of the criteria for a ptential mate and father to the children.

I also think that some people who cannot find mates, often have TOO MANY criteria. And no one can fit the bill completely.

And you are right, you wnt a woman to pick up the tab so to speak. Well that is not part of the basics of Islam. Many women do work, but if that is a main critera. .well.. harder to find someone. She must then work to accomodate your career choices and interests.

Hayfa in your post you said:

Maybe you are the selfish one for pursuing the career(s) you've chosen and the location thus forcing your partner to have to work.

First, how am I selfish for working hard with NO HELP from anyone only to establish myself professionally and financially? These are careers that I had chosen because those are the areas I wanted to do and felt how I can best help society. I don't see how this is selfish in nature. Also, what I believe is how I was raised and have lived through social interactions in my life and thus have come to the conclusion that because of the current circumstances based on my geographical location is what I want. Because I'm still getting to where I want to be I'm saying I cannot afford to NOT have a contributing partner even though I'm established financially (established meaning stable but sometimes this stability may only refer to me as a single man being stable). Also let us discuss where I live. If you live in Los Angeles or Californina you'd understand that regardless where you live housing prices are high. Even in 'bad' neighborhoods houses can cost anywhere from $400-800k. Nowadays the market is going down somewhat but the prices on houses are still considerably high. This has nothing to do with where I live but the current econimical climate I live in. I'm sure you would suggest that I move but that isn't possible for me at this moment since I'm already established here with my profession. As far as wanting a woman to accomodate my career is bad wording. I don't need a woman to accomodate me or complete me. I can function without a woman, but before I even go further of course I'd like to know what the woman currently does as an occupation and of course I'd ask what he standards are for marriage. If she disagrees with those standards then no hard feelings but before I take it to the next step of course I'll lay it out what I'm looking for. there is someone for everyone, but it doesn't make me a bad guy simply because I say that these are my preferences. I don't need a woman to accomodate me, but I'd like a woman of similar interest and qualities.

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:14pm

Chrysalis wrote:

Israfil wrote:

a contributing partner who shares in the financial load. Because i live in California and the housing prices are high nowadays it would be important to have a partner who shares in the financial obligations. This is not the same as a woman who marries simply for money. There is a HUGE difference.

Although I have no problem with each individual having thier own personal preferences when choosing a spouse, I disagree with ppl/men who think it is a woman/wife's obligation to earn, contribute financially. Its ok if due to personal circumstances or preferences, an individual desires a financially stable wife. . . but they shouldnt defend it as a norm, or the way to go. Infact, if thier wives work, they should take it as extra help or good-will on thier part. . . not as thier right.

Women have to go through a whole lot more emotional/physical trauma compared to men . . . and no! Even if they wanted to, they possibly cannot share the natural burdens of bieng a female. Its only fair that they should be given other burdens by nature (or women), and be asked to relieve women of atleast thier financial/emotional burdens. If an individual women feels that she is capable of/wishes to do more. . . then subhanallah. . . but it should not be expected of her. Nor should it be treated as a requirement or responsibility.

Chrysalis fine you disagree but these are my preferences. Don't worry you don't have to marry me, but respect the fact that these are my personal standards. Yes these are unIslamic so-to-speak but God knows my intentions on why I have these beliefs. My job is here and I work here so these are the standards I live by. I will agree that historically, socially, relgiiously and all other categories of life women do encounter a lot more adversity than men I will give you that and many times I tip my hat to the brave women who endure this but don't give me this whinning explanation that because of this this is only right women are relieved of the financial burden. That is a poor excuse and defense to what you are saying.

Hell, my ancestors tioled the American earth for centuries without a thank you. Women raped and men were lynched. Did I, a descendant from these hardworking people receive anything or benfited from this? Nothing except civil rights brought about by the brave men and women of this country who fought for the freedom of their fellow human being. What I'm saying here is just because a woman goes through adversity in life or has to work hard does not make her priviledged in life to be less responsible in other venues in life if anything that is an offensive remark to the many women who bust their bottoms everyday. If anything a woman should be relieved of financial burden when she is carrying the child during those 9 months. I'm sure there are hardowrking women who would love to not have to worry about their own bills anf finances but I'm sure they also appreciate working hard having to provide not only for themselves but for their lovedones be it single moms or whole families. Like I said these are criterias I have for myself. Trust me a male female ratio of 10 to 1 I'm sur eI'd have no problem eventually finding the one I want who understands where I'm coming from.

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 05 August 2008 at 11:01pm

Chrysalis wrote:

Israfil wrote:

Any woman marries a man simply because he is financially wealthy is an immoral gold-digger.

Yes there are Gold-Diggers out there. . . but they are not a majority, nor are they restricted to a specific gender i.e. females. For every Anna Nicole out there, there is a K-Fed.

Also, just because one of the criteria is financial stability, does not make a woman an 'immoral gold-digger'. I think (yes, I'm gonna use 'I think', cz I do not remember which post it was, nor do I remember the exact words)

you're going to agree that 'morality' is a relative term. And just because you have had some bad experiences or feel strongly about an issue, does not mean something becomes immoral. Only if a woman is a Serial-Wife, and purposely seeks out men for thier money, then abandons them to start a new life is she immoral.

Also, ever since the Neanderthals (or as far back as we can think of) Women have been choosing mates on the basis of thier 'provider status'. This doesnt neccassarily translate as so-so bank-balance, but a certain provision ability. Which can be anything. . . Infact, if some women choose intelligent men over rich men, perhaps they interpret the 'provider' aspect differently. They think that an intelligent man will be capable of pulling through any circumstance and take care of/maintain/provide for his mate and family versus a rich man who may be useless once the finances go down the drain.

So if you Inshalah find a woman who wishes to marry you for your intelligence, rest assured - at the end of the day, the primitive reason is still your provider/maintainer ability. Its just a different 'provider' ability.

but because of my finances and where I work and what I do so am I wrong to not allow a woman to secure he genetic offspring by not marrying her simply because she is only interested in me for my money?

Although I'm sure you did encounter gold-diggers. . . but questions like that are essential when thinking/talking about Marriage! You expect a woman to marry you, just after an engaging, intellectually stimulating conversation - without knowing personal details about you such as your job, qualification, etc etc? How is that bieng materialistic? Nobody wants to risk marrying a loser (both men & women) . Unless ppl ask Q's like that how do they know whether thier prospective spouse is a lazy bum/ jobless etc. And before you berate me on using the term 'loser' . . . any man/woman who can afford to, or doesnt have a valid reason, yet still does not gain an education/qualification and is wasting time is a loser/lazy bum etc. Infact such questions are not only restricted to women but Men also wish to know all the above details about a prospective wife. Ofcourse if the conversation is about where we live, what car we drive, how much we earn, etc - then one can say theres something fishy about the person's intentions.

Let us be clear. Any woman (or amn) who gets involved with an individual NOT for LOVE or COMPANIONSHIP, or FRIENDSHIP but simply because of someone's financial status is in my book an immoral, selfish choice. This doesn not have to relate to me this can go for anyone and you know it. I've met Muslimah's newly converted to Islam (mostly, and unfortunately Anglo-american women who marry Arab/Middle Eastern men) and when they marry these men and get them visas to come to the States they are taken advantaged of. Not only for their visas but some of these women are already established here and are taken advantaged of financially. It happens and it continues to happen.

To me this is an immoral behavior because you eventually and in subtle fashion, are taking advantage of an individual who may sincerely believe you either a) love them b) have their best interest as a friend. This is what I'm saying and what I was telling S.A. how this is essentially different from my own standards. Now if you guys don't ge tthis by now them its impossible to break this down to even simpler terms without treating you like you have a mental defect.

I will say any woman who is only interested in how much I make and continues to beg the question on what kinds of vehicles I may drive automatically gets the "boot." If the conversation is not about who I am as a person and what I stand for and what my goals as a contributing human being then obviously she is not interested in me. I'd rather have a down to earth woman who values me as a person than someone who is wealthy and materialistic. Don't get me wrong a woman asking me about what I do is fine, but if she is asking me how much I make then I wouldn't offer that iformation especially if I just met the person. Any professional will tell you that they do not offer that kind of information to a perfect stranger. But if she inquires about my background such as academic career, my job etc then that is fine and indeed important because it goes along with getting to know who I am. Besides being with someone who is financially well of (I'm talking top 5% wealthy of U.S.) I wouldn't want to deal with that kind of pressure.

Edited by Israfil - 05 August 2008 at 11:04pm

Israfil

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 September 2003
Status: Offline
Points: 3984

Post Options