What man would accept that kind of clause?

[Gacmeey]

Every time I hear this lady yapping, she always on some bullshit. I’d seriously question the intellect of any man who’d accept this.

 

[Angelina]

I don’t understand how you can question the intellect of a woman who is talking about a clause classical Islamic scholars have talked about in detail? Do you question the intellect of scholars who have outlined this clause in detail? Do you question Islamqa who have talked about this clause in detail as well?
Many men are ok with being monogamous. The average man has one wife.

 

[Kisame]

I'm not really expecting westernized Muslim dudes to have multiple wives.

 

[Gacmeey]

I don’t understand how you can question the intellect of a woman who is talking about a clause classical Islamic scholars have talked about in detail? Do you question the intellect of scholars who have outlined this clause in detail? Do you question Islamqa who have talked about this clause in detail as well?
Many men are ok with being monogamous. The average man has one wife.

I don’t question the intellect of a woman her reasoning is sound tbh nor do I say it’s an invalid clause. I question the intellect of the male. Women are plentiful on this earth, he could just go marry another one without putting his wealth at risk.

 

[Gacmeey]

I'm not really expecting westernized Muslim dudes to have multiple wives.

Maybe not but it’s stupid either way. Maybe in future you might need a second wife for some reason but you’ve left yourself with no option except to divorce the mother of your kids

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

lol funny

 

[Gacmeey]

lol funny

If a woman suggested this, I’d laugh and just walk away. Reminds of a mate of mine who tried to finance a car and they quoted him a 16% rate. Only agree to a contract if it’s a good one

 

[Baarisiyomoos]

she’s totally right and I am absolutely gonna do this. the man I marry should not take another wife, so it shouldn’t be an issue for him. imagine going through childbirth, even multiple times, for a man, and he leaves you for another woman while you’re supposed to sit there and look dumb. no way i’d rather mop the ocean floor

 

[Angelina]

I don’t question the intellect of a woman her reasoning is sound tbh nor do I say it’s an invalid clause. I question the intellect of the male. Women are plentiful on this earth, he could just go marry another one without putting his wealth at risk.

Many men are monogamous and don’t find this clause an issue. It’s only an issue if he plans on taking a second wife and if you are, why marry a woman that doesn’t want to share? Why do men want to force women into a lifestyle they don’t want? Btw, this clause was incredibly common in the early days of Islam. So many men used to sign it. It’s only now this clause has become uncommon and tbh it needs to be revived because let’s be honest, a modern woman who has money of her own isn’t going to stay in a polygamous marriage either way. Most men who do take on a second wife end up with drama and divorce. The vast majority of women aren’t willing to share and most men aren’t going to keep a wife who hates their guts and doesn’t want to be with them anymore, so clause or not, divorce will be on the horizon. Both parties might as well be honest with each other from the get-go.

 

[attash]

Such a contract is fine as long as it goes both ways. If she cheats on him, he gets to take 100% of her wealth too

 

[Angelina]

Such a contract is fine as long as it goes both ways. If she cheats on him, he gets to take 100% of her wealth too

The contract has got nothing to do with wealth. It merely outlines that if a man married again, the marriage between the man and his first wife is over. That’s it. Hence I have no idea why many men are against it. Either way, contract or not, a woman that doesn’t want to share isn’t going to stick around. Both parties might as well be transparent from the beginning.

 

[attash]

The contract has got nothing to do with wealth. It merely outlines that if a man married again, the marriage between the man and his first wife is over. That’s it. Hence I have no idea why many men are against it. Either way, contract or not, a woman that doesn’t want to share isn’t going to stick around. Both parties might as well be transparent from the beginning.

Wealth is the whole reason why niggas like @Gacmeey is calling this crazy. 100% of your wealth is wild

 

[Angelina]

Wealth is the whole reason why niggas like @Gacmeey is calling this crazy. 100% of your wealth is wild

He’s confused. The contact has nothing to do with wealth.

 

[Angelina]

Oh @attash and @Gacmeey just watched the video

I thought it was a regular no second wife clause. I didn’t know about the wealth aspect. No that’s mad. No man will accept that.

 

[reer]

I don’t understand how you can question the intellect of a woman who is talking about a clause classical Islamic scholars have talked about in detail? Do you question the intellect of scholars who have outlined this clause in detail? Do you question Islamqa who have talked about this clause in detail as well?
Many men are ok with being monogamous. The average man has one wife.

mumbo jumbo. you dont get your assets seized for taking another wife.

 

[Angelina]

mumbo jumbo. you dont get your assets seized for taking another wife.

I didn’t watch the video. I thought it was a regular clause

No you’re right. No one seizes your wealth. Never heard of such a thing before.

 

[The alchemist]

Avoid those women and you're good.

Even if you never plan on cheating or want a second wife, it is the principle that matters and what it reveals about the person you're marrying. Her attempt is a red flag of being extremely neurotically possessive overstepping her boundaries and not respecting you as a man of morality and respectability, she does not even see you as an agent of authority. She is vindictive beyond rationality, and, of course, hungry for power and assurance without trust. Someone who threatens you with consequences instead of trusting you in a dynamic where trust is everything is not good marriage material. They have emotional issues that they need to fix and mature from. For a marriage, that will fail even if you're pussy whipped cowering to her whims. As soon as you sign that clause, you are a peon to her.

Find a woman who is not broken and flighty. Usually, the ones who pull psychotic moves like that are the ones who are morally questionable. Usually, they have a strange past of dating men who have cheated on them. Zina is overwhelmingly involved in that. The minority that is chaste, carries such low intelligence as they've let other women and stupid trendy advice affect their minds without processing it through their own developed sound reasoning and human sensibilities. That woman is also not good to marry because she is too influenced by the world and would always pick the collective that has no stake in the marriage over you.

There is never a need to make a fuss about anything. Peep the woman and you will know fully of what she is about very early through basic attentiveness. People tell you who they are quickly. That move told me a lot about the woman and why she is not a good material for a wife. I don't care if she was drop-dead gorgeous. But I know a lot of weak men would sign that clause and mess their lives up.

Also, this is rarely said but I have another great advice. Avoid women with no original thought and observe where she consume her information because that will inform of her thinking, and worldview and will 100% carry significance in her day-to-day life. A person with low original thinking can never separate herself from the world. And a person without a strong sense of center and where her center overlaps with yours will always fluctuate everywhere and you will see issues come up. A woman who falls in love with you will always make themselves extra open to you influencing them on their own and that is just part of the process but I mean in how she relates to the rest of the world.

I initially thought that women were pandering to me when they signaled highly how I had such an effect on them but I realized that is just how women are when they are intoxicated with love, lust, and other mixtures of feminine emotions when talking to a man they are infatuated with. It creeped me out when I was younger because it felt so fake but all women are like this. It's genuine. Women are sometimes corny in beautiful ways and you should just learn to embrace that.

There are plenty of good women out there. Don't pick the bad ones and complain. You're not ready for a marriage if you cannot discern a good woman from a bad one. Never marry a woman that is not ride or die. Absolutely.

 

[Angelina]

Avoid those women and you're good.

Even if you never plan on cheating or want a second wife, it is the principle that matters and what it reveals about the person you're marrying. Her attempt is a red flag of being extremely neurotically possessive overstepping her boundaries and not respecting you as a man of morality and respectability, she does not even see you as an agent of authority. She is vindictive beyond rationality, and, of course, hungry for power and assurance without trust. Someone who threatens you with consequences instead of trusting you in a dynamic where trust is everything is not good marriage material. They have emotional issues that they need to fix and mature from. For a marriage, that will fail even if you're pussy whipped cowering to her whims. As soon as you sign that clause, you are a peon to her.

Find a woman who is not broken and flighty. Usually, the ones who pull psychotic moves like that are the ones who are morally questionable. Usually, they have a strange past of dating men who have cheated on them. Zina is overwhelmingly involved in that. The minority that is chaste, carries such low intelligence as they've let other women and stupid trendy advice affect their minds without processing it through their own developed sound reasoning and human sensibilities. That woman is also not good to marry because she is too influenced by the world and would always pick the collective that has no stake in the marriage over you.

There is never a need to make a fuss about anything. Peep the woman and you will know fully of what she is about very early through basic attentiveness. People tell you who they are quickly. That move told me a lot about the woman and why she is not a good material for a wife. I don't care if she was drop-dead gorgeous. But I know a lot of weak men would sign that clause and mess their lives up.

Also, this is rarely said but I have another great advice. Avoid women with no original thought and observe where she consume her information because that will inform of her thinking, and worldview and will 100% carry significance in her day-to-day life. A person with low original thinking can never separate herself from the world. And a person without a strong sense of center and where her center overlaps with yours will always fluctuate everywhere and you will see issues come up. A woman who falls in love with you will always make themselves extra open to you influencing them on their own and that is just part of the process but I mean in how she relates to the rest of the world.

I initially thought that women were pandering to me when they signaled highly how I had such an effect on them but I realized that is just how women are when they are intoxicated with love, lust, and other mixtures of feminine emotions when talking to a man they are infatuated with. It creeped me out when I was younger because it felt so fake but all women are like this. It's genuine. Women are sometimes corny in beautiful ways and you should just learn to embrace that.

There are plenty of good women out there. Don't pick the bad ones and complain. You're not ready for a marriage if you cannot discern a good woman from a bad one. Never marry a woman that is not ride or die. Absolutely.

Do you have issues with the clause or her ridiculous addition of wanting a man’s money?

The clause itself is fine, many scholars believe that Fatima s.a.w also had a no polygamy clause as well. It’s the wealth part which I find strange. I didn’t actually watch the video and ran with the standard no polygamy clause which is seen as normal and valid.

 

[Gacmeey]

Many men are monogamous and don’t find this clause an issue. It’s only an issue if he plans on taking a second wife and if you are, why marry a woman that doesn’t want to share? Why do men want to force women into a lifestyle they don’t want? Btw, this clause was incredibly common in the early days of Islam. So many men used to sign it. It’s only now this clause has become uncommon and tbh it needs to be revived because let’s be honest, a modern woman who has money of her own isn’t going to stay in a polygamous marriage either way. Most men who do take on a second wife end up with drama and divorce. The vast majority of women aren’t willing to share and most men aren’t going to keep a wife who hates their guts and doesn’t want to be with them anymore, so clause or not, divorce will be on the horizon. Both parties might as well be honest with each other from the get-go.

This change and people change. You might want to be monogamous today but a couple years down the line you might want or even need a second wife. Either signing a contract where if you break a clause you lose all your wealth is peak stupidity. It’d be okay if it was instant divorce

 

[Angelina]

This change and people change. You might want to be monogamous today but a couple years down the line you might want or even need a second wife. Either signing a contract where if you break a clause you lose all your wealth is peak stupidity. It’d be okay if it was instant divorce

Look, I didn’t watch the video. The wealth part is ridiculous and I’ve never heard any scholar say it’s acceptable. But the no polygamous clause is normal when it comes to an instant divorce.