@𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈 I think
akhlaaq trumps wealth. But I also think that it's
important for a man to be able to provide (at least the basics/minimum) for his wife. It's not an either-or.
We are in agreement on both. Did I fail to make that clear in my earlier responses? Or come across as if arguing for otherwise?
Young man, this isn’t an either or and Edo Muna never presented that way which is why I said there was an element of dishonesty here although I do see that my comment was harsh and believe me you’re one of the posters I highly respect, so I hope I haven’t caused any offense. I enjoy our debates. Hence I will officially apologize.
Walaalo, in principle, we are mostly in agreement on core issues, but differ the path Eedo Muna is charting in what 'appears' to me a proclamation on the issue of the poor. The rest of her message is sound, spot on, and I think to have made that clear from the onset more than once. Let us agree to disagree on that front, shall we?
No offence taken walaal, I just want us to debate the issues at hand, for when one questions the character of another, or bring it into question, it just derails the discourse. Masha'Allah you are a brilliant egg, a prolific debater, and a pleasure to cross swords with.
Also, why are you equating basic provision with riches? Again you’re relying on a polarized black and white/all or nothing approach which doesn’t even look at the issue holistically. That's incredibly unfair to Muna and goes against her underlining overall message.
I am using the term 'riches' as the opposite of poor, and to differentiate it from being 'wealthy'. Do you think I was being unfair to Eedo Muna in that respect?
My dear brother the site literally says it’s a fabrication. If you scroll down, it says it in black and white for all to see. I'm also getting the impression you don't read what I write but read to simply reply since I took a screenshot of that very site which literally says it is a fabrication, yet you didn't even acknowledge that and proceeded to use that very same site as some sort of proof?
I was drawing a distinction between '
weak', where its chain of transmission is questionable, as is the case of Ibrahim ibn al Mundhir suspected of being unreliable, and '
fabrication', where it has no basis, or is wholly manufactured. True, in the Shafi3i madhab, the judgement is rather different from other madhabs.
These lines suffice:
وقد وردت بعض الآثار تدل على نفس المعنى عن بعض الصحابة كعمر وعائشة وابن مسعود وابن عباس وغيرهم، وبعضها صح موقوفاً وبعضها لم يصح، قال ابن كثير رحمه الله: وفي القرآن غنية عنه. يريد قوله تعالى:
وَأَنْكِحُوا الْأَيَامَى مِنْكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ إِنْ يَكُونُوا فُقَرَاءَ يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِنْ فَضْلِهِ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ {النور: 32}.
Either way, whether it's a fabrication or incredibly weak it was evident for me from the get go it wasn't a proper hadith and it isn't something anyone can take as proof and it's weakness is evident and I was proven right straight away upon research, but this is how I knew initially:
1. Example, the weak/fabricated hadith encourages very poor men to marry despite the fact that the Islamic requirement of a second marriage is ability to provide.
2. The hadith talks about a man marrying again and gaining wealth via his wives working for him and becoming tailors. That is the antithesis of manliness from an Islamic perspective since the man cannot marry and expect a woman to provide for him. The Quran literally says:
ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا ٣٤
Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially.
On the issue of providing for one's family, again we are in agreement a man MUST provide, care, look after, and be any and all for his family. I even go one step further, and argue men MUST care for their friends, community, neighbours etc. I even recall your lambasting me for it in a previous conversation.
There is no vilification of the poor. The best of men can be poor but we’re talking about a man’s ability to provide and the actual marriage contract hinges upon that. Please read the Islamweb fatwa that illustrates this and even the Shafi guide to a man's minimum in terms of marriage.
I don’t think you’re realizing the duty of man here. He must look after his wife and kids hence if a man is in an incredibly poor state in which he can provide nothing, he is advised to fast.
I shall reflect on the issue of egalitarianism at time permits.
