Am I missing something: Why are Somali men mad at this woman?

[rayxn3]

I want beautiful Somali children to stay with mothers and not live a silic life. I want Somali children to have the same lives as children in Saudi, Netherlands, Japan, Malaysia, Turkey, etc etc.

Who cannot give them a happy childhood??? Failed Somali men.

See how you couldn’t list a single Black Country although you said they’re better than Somali men But you mentioned Arab, East Asian and white countries. Lool

 

[rayxn3]

Nigga that’s you?!?!I thought it was some random model LOLLL

He looks like Iman from the side. Too bad he’s said too many dumb things on here to pursue modelling

 

[Angelina]

Masha'Allah, this Sheikh comes across knowledgeable, reflective, and balanced. Thank you for sharing.

Eedo Muna must continue her activism for calling on women to seek, marry 'good' men with her target being chat-chewing, fag-stained, sha7ad-seeking, dole-queueing, female-purse assailling, family-neglecting wastrels; she ought to sharpen her rhetoric, draw a clear distinction so as to not alienate 'good' men, wrongly influence 'good' women into a life of solitude, and seek alliance amongst good men, advocate for good men, as she has done in the other clip warning against gender bouts. There are so many 'good' poor men, as whether one is poor or not is predetermined well beyond one's control. Rizq comes from the Almighty. One must seek it, sweat, and work for it.

Further, she ought to remove the 'material' element from her argument, which if anything dilutes validity in her good arguments. Let not the culture of popularity, adulation by hungry hordes get to her head.

The thing is, what is a materialist argument? Is saying the basic Islamic belief that a man should be able to provide materialistic? Are we dumbing ourselves down? How is a man meant to fulfil the Quranic duty of provision if he has nothing and we as a society skirt around this issue and label it as ‘materialistic’.

My dear brother, I truly believe there is a huge element of misogyny that was unleashed upon Muna because I truly believe that if it was a male scholar/Sheikh saying it, there would hardly be any backlash or even talks of materialism.

Note, Look at Sh.Assim Al Hakeem here who tackles the issue;

He says a man that can’t provide the basics should wait until he marries and believes that the generic advise that is thrown at men that they should marry whilst having nothing is unwise. It’s one thing if it’s a man that is low income but can provide an apartment, food and medicine.

Please have a watch and actually come to back to me with regards to this topic:


Somalis wouldn’t dare to form a backlash against a Somali or Arab male scholar but it’s easy to target a woman who says what you don’t like when you’re from a culture that devalues women’s views.

Also, culture plays a role. If Muna was an Arab or maybe even a South Asian woman, there would probably not be a huge backlash as their culture has bigger financial expectations of men and it isn’t unusual for fathers to even go as far as looking as men’s pay slips to make sure their daughters are going into good hands financially. Somalis don’t have that level of protectiveness over daughters and once divorced it isn’t unusual for a woman to be expected to provide for herself and her kids. I can’t help but believe that our cultural atmosphere is why we’re getting comments like materialism and men being irritated by Muna’s comments, because as a society there doesn’t seem to be a huge emphasis on the importance of looking after a woman.

As the wise man said: do not make Shuyukh, nor seek knowledge and wisdom from wo(men), who possess neither.

As agile as Eedo @Angelina is, one would expect she would be a bit more selective, if discriminating in her quest of genuine source of wisdom. As admirable as she is, Ms Muna is no Rabi3a al 3adawiya nor Fatima al Fihri.

She could play similar role by great women, who came before her incl.
- Fatima Jibril (env.),
- Hawa Adam (edu.),
- Aisha Ghelle (micro econ. dev.),
- Khadija Cosoble (micro econ. dev.),
- Even Edna* Adam (health)
(* I must add a disclaimer, and be cautious, for this lady is rather toxic, even if revered in Hargeysa).

Postscript:
As an egalitarian society, our women enjoy a great deal of freedoms, could not be forced into marriage, with exceptions, which are rare, unlike some traditional Asian cultures. Instead, circumstance breeds a culture where young girls are being exploited by villainous libertines. Like others before her, Ms Muna could wage a war against this new exploitative culture.

Somali society isn’t egalitarian and has never been such. Confusing men’s neglectfulness as egalitarian benevolence is to be expected because a society in which a man can up and leave and leave a woman and her child without giving a penny is a society that is forced to foster female independence if not women and offspring will literally die. This isn’t coming from a place of ‘women empowerment’. Look at big companies in Somalia, look at parliament, those with the money and power are still mostly men and even back home the idea of women occupying those positions are still not taken well but if a woman is toiling in a low paying field people are okay with it as they would argue this is something she has to do since she’s ‘poor’. This is why Somali women are given a level of independence as husbands cannot be trusted to be reliable but even then it’s a cap and women having higher positions are frowned upon back home.

Even TekNIko the resident misogynist admitted that men not paying child support and leaving women and children to fend for themselves in an incredibly poor environment is normal. Men taking kids away if the mother can’t provide instead of giving her child support is normal. Those kids will often be raised by an abusive step mother whilst the real mother is denied access due to poverty.

 

[Abu Hesi]

Masha'Allah, this Sheikh comes across knowledgeable, reflective, and balanced. Thank you for sharing.

Eedo Muna must continue her activism for calling on women to seek, marry 'good' men with her target being chat-chewing, fag-stained, sha7ad-seeking, dole-queueing, female-purse assailling, family-neglecting wastrels; she ought to sharpen her rhetoric, draw a clear distinction so as to not alienate 'good' men, wrongly influence 'good' women into a life of solitude, and seek alliance amongst good men, advocate for good men, as she has done in the other clip warning against gender bouts. There are so many 'good' poor men, as whether one is poor or not is predetermined well beyond one's control. Rizq comes from the Almighty. One must seek it, sweat, and work for it.

Further, she ought to remove the 'material' element from her argument, which if anything dilutes validity in her good arguments. Let not the culture of popularity, adulation by hungry hordes get to her head.

As the wise man said: do not make Shuyukh, nor seek knowledge and wisdom from wo(men), who possess neither.

As agile as Eedo @Angelina is, one would expect she would be a bit more selective, if discriminating in her quest of genuine source of wisdom. As admirable as she is, Ms Muna is no Rabi3a al 3adawiya nor Fatima al Fihri.

She could play similar role by great women, who came before her incl.
- Fatima Jibril (env.),
- Hawa Adam (edu.),
- Aisha Ghelle (micro econ. dev.),
- Khadija Cosoble (micro econ. dev.),
- Even Edna* Adam (health)
(* I must add a disclaimer, and be cautious, for this lady is rather toxic, even if revered in Hargeysa).

Postscript:
As an egalitarian society, our women enjoy a great deal of freedoms, could not be forced into marriage, with exceptions, which are rare, unlike some traditional Asian cultures. Instead, circumstance breeds a culture where young girls are being exploited by villainous libertines. Like others before her, Ms Muna could wage a war against this new exploitative culture.

xikmad vs buuq

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

The thing is, what is a materialist argument? Is saying the basic Islamic belief that a man should be able to provide materialistic? Are we dumbing ourselves down? How is a man meant to fulfil the Quranic duty of provision if he has nothing and we as a society skirt around this issue and label it as ‘materialistic’.

Walaal, in principle, let us agree on the following:
a) Promote good men with 'akhlaq, thiqah, anshax, dhamir' etc, which Eedo Muna advocates for,
b) As the head of household, a man must be able to, and provide for his family,
c) Weed out 'vile' men.

On the materialism argument, the quandary is attaching to, or even associating a greater value with the riches (materialism) over other core values: akhlaq, thiqah, anshax, dhamir etc, a phenomenon more prevalent in S E Asia. Within that orbit, let us take your definition of 'faqir' (one who could not even offer mere morsel). Suppose he, who is 'faqir' is the consummate gentleman of the highest standing possessing said attributes, let us call him Mohamed. Then, there is Ali, a contemporary of his, who is well-off, but lacks all manners of what constitutes being a gentleman void of 'alakhlaq al daruriya (requisite moral code)'; if we were to go by Eedo Muna's thesis, Ali would be, is [the] ultimate man whereas Mohamed is undesirable, for here Ali's equity by virtue of his riches incl. a decent set of wheels, designer clothes, pedicured, manicured visage, toes and tail etc. grants him keys to the Kerberos ahead of poor Mohamed, whose second-hand shoes had been stolen at his local charity shop whilst feeding the homeless.

Again, Eedo Muna is right in rallying against vile men, but her message is being corrupted by her ill-advised injection of 'riches' into the conversation where unsuspecting, mostly young ladies, as in the 2nd clip, are enthralled in awe and adulation, as if she were the Masiah on the rise.

My dear brother, I truly believe there is a huge element of misogyny that was unleashed upon Muna because I truly believe that if it was a male scholar/Sheikh saying it, there would hardly be any backlash or even talks of materialism.

That is rather unfortunate. I am afraid I am unfamiliar with Somali social media, and their uproars, needless to say, it would not surprise me.

Note, Look at Sh.Assim Al Hakeem here who tackles the issue;

He says a man that can’t provide the basics should wait until he marries and believes that the generic advise that is thrown at men that they should marry whilst having nothing is unwise. It’s one thing if it’s a man that is low income but can provide an apartment, food and medicine.

Please have a watch and actually come to back to me with regards to this topic:

As for Mr Assim (1st time I am seeing him), his reflections are rational, sound, and in line with Islam.

Somalis wouldn’t dare to form a backlash against a Somali or Arab male scholar but it’s easy to target a woman who says what you don’t like when you’re from a culture that devalues women’s views.

This is a fallacy, walaal. A flawed messenger is just that irrespective of h(er)is creed.

Somali society isn’t egalitarian and has never been such. Confusing men’s neglectfulness as egalitarian benevolence is to be expected because a society in which a man can up and leave and leave a woman and her child without giving a penny is a society that is forced to foster female independence if not women and offspring will literally die. This isn’t coming from a place of ‘women empowerment’. Look at big companies in Somalia, look at parliament, those with the money and power are still mostly men and even back home the idea of women occupying those positions are still not taken well but if a woman is toiling in a low paying field people are okay with it as they would argue this is something she has to do since she’s ‘poor’. This is why Somali women are given a level of independence as husbands cannot be trusted to be reliable but even then it’s a cap and women having higher positions are frowned upon back home.

Egalitarianism, as a political theory, builds upon the principle of social equity, the perfect depiction of nomadic life, where there is no definitive class, prescribed hierarchy, or defined hereditary social structure borne out of nobility, land ownership, wealth etc. Every nomad has his, lives his life as he desires, and answers to no one, unlike European, and Asian societies, which are class-orientated, highly structured, and where the nobles and elites preside over the working classes to this date with the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few families, check UK, India, China to name a few. That hardly applies in nomadic societies.

I shall pause there lest accused of pontificating.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I can’t help but believe that our cultural atmosphere is why we’re getting comments like materialism and men being irritated by Muna’s comments, because as a society there doesn’t seem to be a huge emphasis on the importance of looking after a woman.

Here, you draw a rather dodgy conclusion from a distant slither, which struggles for relevance, but I'll come back to it once I have sorted my Sunday rituals.

 

[Journey.]

On the materialism argument, the quandary is attaching to, or even associating a greater value with the riches (materialism) over other core values: akhlaq, thiqah, anshax, dhamir etc, a phenomenon more prevalent in S E Asia.

How is that relevant here? Both are important and need to be taken into consideration when looking to marry. In this instance, the main issue seems to be women settling for men who can't provide the basics so the focus is on encouraging them to have financial standards. This doesn't mean akhlaq takes a back seat. I'm not familiar with Sh Muna but you mentioned she also encourages women to marry "good" men. So how did you conclude that she places greater value on "riches" over akhlaq?

 

[Angelina]

Walaal, in principle, let us agree on the following:
a) Promote good men with 'akhlaq, thiqah, anshax, dhamir' etc, which Eedo Muna advocates for,
b) As the head of household, a man must be able to, and provide for his family,
c) Weed out 'vile' men.

Well, Muna covered all. She talked about a man’s akhlaaq and how he should have the ability to provide and to avoid khat chewers. I think you simply don’t like how she said it but the message is essentially the same.

On the materialism argument, the quandary is attaching to, or even associating a greater value with the riches (materialism) over other core values: akhlaq, thiqah, anshax, dhamir etc, a phenomenon more prevalent in S E Asia. Within that orbit, let us take your definition of 'faqir' (one who could not even offer mere morsel). Suppose he, who is 'faqir' is the consummate gentleman of the highest standing possessing said attributes, let us call him Mohamed.

The issue is that a man that is very and I mean very poor simply cannot fulfil the rights of a wife or even children which is why they’re not encouraged to not marry and wait and fast. Even Assim mentioned this. You seem to want to by-pass this and I think whilst you acknowledge that a man must provide, you don’t seem to grasp the importance of it. Imagine if a man is amazing but he’s a pauper, where will his wife sleep, where will she give birth? You’re not being rational or even talking about the reality and are going down the path of idealism rather than looking at it from a lens that’s also practical and Islam is a religion that still very much looks at the condition of human life as it is which is why madhabs hash out minimums I man must provide.

Then, there is Ali, a contemporary of his, who is well-off, but lacks all manners of what constitutes being a gentleman void of 'alakhlaq al daruriya (requisite moral code)'; if we were to go by Eedo Muna's thesis, Ali would be, is [the] ultimate man whereas Mohamed is undesirable, for here Ali's equity by virtue of his riches incl. a decent set of wheels, designer clothes, pedicured, manicured visage, toes and tail etc. grants him keys to the Kerberos ahead of poor Mohamed, whose second-hand shoes had been stolen at his local charity shop whilst feeding the homeless.

You’re now going down the territory of lying about Edo. Edo literally spoke about the importance of character and spoke about that in detail.

Again, Eedo Muna is right in rallying against vile men, but her message is being corrupted by her ill-advised injection of 'riches' into the conversation where unsuspecting, mostly young ladies, as in the 2nd clip, are enthralled in awe and adulation, as if she were the Masiah on the rise.

How is saying don’t marry a very poor man injecting riches? Was the Prophet s.a.w injecting riches when telling Fatima bin Quas to not marry a very poor Muawaiya? Or is Assim Al Hakeem injecting ‘riches’ when he tells its poor advise to tell very poor men to marry? Surely it’s equally poor advise to tell a girl to marry poor men?

That is rather unfortunate. I am afraid I am unfamiliar with Somali social media, and their uproars, needless to say, it would not surprise me.

As for Mr Assim (1st time I am seeing him), his reflections are rational, sound, and in line with Islam.

This is a fallacy, walaal. A flawed messenger is just that irrespective of h(er)is creed.

I’d like you to point out what’s flawed and what’s the major difference between her message and Assim Al Hakeem, that’s what I don’t understand?

Egalitarianism, as a political theory, builds upon the principle of social equity, the perfect depiction of nomadic life, where there is no definitive class, prescribed hierarchy, or defined hereditary social structure borne out of nobility, land ownership, wealth etc. Every nomad has his, lives his life as he desires, and answers to no one, unlike European, and Asian societies, which are class-orientated, highly structured, and where the nobles and elites preside over the working classes to this date with the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few families, check UK, India, China to name a few. That hardly applies in nomadic societies.

I shall pause there lest accused of pontificating.

I have one question, what is the difference between telling very fakhir men to not marry vs telling a woman to not marry very fakhir men?

I’d like you to outline the difference in a very precise manner.

 

[Angelina]

How is that relevant here? Both are important and need to be taken into consideration when looking to marry. In this instance, the main issue seems to be women settling for men who can't provide the basics so the focus is on encouraging them to have financial standards. This doesn't mean akhlaq takes a back seat. I'm not familiar with Sh Muna but you mentioned she also encourages women to marry "good" men. So how did you conclude that she places greater value on "riches" over akhlaq?

That’s my issue and I don’t seem to understand what’s the major difference between Sh. Assim Al Hakeem saying that overly poor young men shouldn’t marry and Muna telling women to marry overly poor men? Also, how is that an injection of riches when there are various levels with regards to money. If you avoid men who are near enough paupers does that mean the only men left for you to marry are the rich ones?

I don’t think some of the stances we’re seeing here are logical and relies on saying that Muna said something she didn’t: Marry a rich man. She never said that and on top of that she emphasized to marry good men whom he too admits.

 

[Angelina]

Egalitarianism, as a political theory, builds upon the principle of social equity, the perfect depiction of nomadic life, where there is no definitive class, prescribed hierarchy, or defined hereditary social structure borne out of nobility, land ownership, wealth etc. Every nomad has his, lives his life as he desires, and answers to no one, unlike European, and Asian societies, which are class-orientated, highly structured, and where the nobles and elites preside over the working classes to this date with the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few families, check UK, India, China to name a few. That hardly applies in nomadic societies.

I shall pause there lest accused of pontificating.

There are qabil hierarchy. We have a 0.5 group who have been put in a lowly position for centuries. In a Nomadic setting, people cannot live as they please. Even taking up the skill of black smithing would have you ostracized in a traditional Nomadic setting. I think you have a romanticized view and don’t get me started on Gender. In fact the Somalis are better now due to better understanding of Islam rather than our traditional laws such as Xeer in which a woman’s inheritance would often be stolen.

Whilst nomadic societies comes across as more ‘freeing’ that isn’t the case for everyone and a Nomadic society is still plagued by some sort of stratification, landheere vs Langaab. Nomad vs tanner/blacksmith/trad healer ect.

 

[Journey.]

That’s my issue and I don’t seem to understand what’s the major difference between Sh. Assim Al Hakeem saying that overly poor young men shouldn’t marry and Muna telling women to marry overly poor men? Also, how is that an injection of riches when there are various levels with regards to money. If you avoid men who are near enough paupers does that mean the only men left for you to marry are the rich ones?

I don’t think some of the stances we’re seeing here are logical and relies on saying that Muna said something she didn’t: Marry a rich man. She never said that and on top of that she emphasized to marry good men whom he too admits.

A woman saying, "don't marry a man who cannot provide and take care of you properly", shouldn't be causing this much outcry.

 

[Shayla]

See how you couldn’t list a single Black Country although you said they’re better than Somali men But you mentioned Arab, East Asian and white countries. Lool

I did that deliberately actually. I didn't want Angelinas thread to be derailed again.

It is a very interesting thread, and all the crying about my comment about madow men vs silence on my comment about Arab, Cadaan men; was distracting from the interesting points Angelina is making.

 

[Shayla]

The thing is, what is a materialist argument? Is saying the basic Islamic belief that a man should be able to provide materialistic? Are we dumbing ourselves down? How is a man meant to fulfil the Quranic duty of provision if he has nothing and we as a society skirt around this issue and label it as ‘materialistic’.

My dear brother, I truly believe there is a huge element of misogyny that was unleashed upon Muna because I truly believe that if it was a male scholar/Sheikh saying it, there would hardly be any backlash or even talks of materialism.

Note, Look at Sh.Assim Al Hakeem here who tackles the issue;

He says a man that can’t provide the basics should wait until he marries and believes that the generic advise that is thrown at men that they should marry whilst having nothing is unwise. It’s one thing if it’s a man that is low income but can provide an apartment, food and medicine.

Please have a watch and actually come to back to me with regards to this topic:


Somalis wouldn’t dare to form a backlash against a Somali or Arab male scholar but it’s easy to target a woman who says what you don’t like when you’re from a culture that devalues women’s views.

Also, culture plays a role. If Muna was an Arab or maybe even a South Asian woman, there would probably not be a huge backlash as their culture has bigger financial expectations of men and it isn’t unusual for fathers to even go as far as looking as men’s pay slips to make sure their daughters are going into good hands financially. Somalis don’t have that level of protectiveness over daughters and once divorced it isn’t unusual for a woman to be expected to provide for herself and her kids. I can’t help but believe that our cultural atmosphere is why we’re getting comments like materialism and men being irritated by Muna’s comments, because as a society there doesn’t seem to be a huge emphasis on the importance of looking after a woman.

Somali society isn’t egalitarian and has never been such. Confusing men’s neglectfulness as egalitarian benevolence is to be expected because a society in which a man can up and leave and leave a woman and her child without giving a penny is a society that is forced to foster female independence if not women and offspring will literally die. This isn’t coming from a place of ‘women empowerment’. Look at big companies in Somalia, look at parliament, those with the money and power are still mostly men and even back home the idea of women occupying those positions are still not taken well but if a woman is toiling in a low paying field people are okay with it as they would argue this is something she has to do since she’s ‘poor’. This is why Somali women are given a level of independence as husbands cannot be trusted to be reliable but even then it’s a cap and women having higher positions are frowned upon back home.

Even TekNIko the resident misogynist admitted that men not paying child support and leaving women and children to fend for themselves in an incredibly poor environment is normal. Men taking kids away if the mother can’t provide instead of giving her child support is normal. Those kids will often be raised by an abusive step mother whilst the real mother is denied access due to poverty.

Very interesting take you have about egalitarianism. I used to think Somalis were more egalitarian compared to Asian and Arabs, but tbh you have me rethinking it.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Well, Muna covered all. She talked about a man’s akhlaaq and how he should have the ability to provide and to avoid khat chewers. I think you simply don’t like how she said it but the message is essentially the same.

The issue is that a man that is very and I mean very poor simply cannot fulfil the rights of a wife or even children which is why they’re not encouraged to not marry and wait and fast. Even Assim mentioned this. You seem to want to by-pass this and I think whilst you acknowledge that a man must provide, you don’t seem to grasp the importance of it. Imagine if a man is amazing but he’s a pauper, where will his wife sleep, where will she give birth? You’re not being rational or even talking about the reality and are going down the path of idealism rather than looking at it from a lens that’s also practical and Islam is a religion that still very much looks at the condition of human life as it is which is why madhabs hash out minimums I man must provide.


You’re now going down the territory of lying about Edo. Edo literally spoke about the importance of character and spoke about that in detail.

How is saying don’t marry a very poor man injecting riches? Was the Prophet s.a.w injecting riches when telling Fatima bin Quas to not marry a very poor Muawaiya? Or is Assim Al Hakeem injecting ‘riches’ when he tells its poor advise to tell very poor men to marry? Surely it’s equally poor advise to tell a girl to marry poor men?

I’d like you to point out what’s flawed and what’s the major difference between her message and Assim Al Hakeem, that’s what I don’t understand?

I have one question, what is the difference between telling very fakhir men to not marry vs telling a woman to not marry very fakhir men?

I’d like you to outline the difference in a very precise manner.

I shall have to be brief, for the markets are killing me with their tipsy-turfy gyrations.

Your questions are valid, but let me begin with a simple question of my own: Does the hadith instruct wo(men): Do not marry the poor? Or is it case by case? Or was this an instance where the Prophet pbuh offered counsel to the Muslima amongst her choice of men? Again, her choice of men. Let me bring in a couple of hadiths:
a) Where a poor man came to the Prophet pbuh complaining about their rations not being enough for him and his wife, and was advised to marry a second wife to increase their share (I'll see if I could locate the original text),
b) In another hadith, a married man complained to the Prophet pbuh he was married, but poor, and was advised to marry another wife, which he did, the man came back again with the same query, where the same advise was offered, but still came back till the 4th wife; the man's state changed, and was no longer poor ( there is more to this hadith, and I'll see if I could locate the original text).

Now, does the hadith instruct wo(men): Do not marry the poor? Or is it case by case counsel?
I ask that, for Eedo Muna issued a directive advising young women not to marry poor men. Is that in line with the hadiths?

Postscript:
I wish we could stick with the actual issue at hand, not focus on who said what, and leave 'man said, women said' minutiae to aside.

How is that relevant here? Both are important and need to be taken into consideration when looking to marry. In this instance, the main issue seems to be women settling for men who can't provide the basics so the focus is on encouraging them to have financial standards. This doesn't mean akhlaq takes a back seat. I'm not familiar with Sh Muna but you mentioned she also encourages women to marry "good" men. So how did you conclude that she places greater value on "riches" over akhlaq?

I think you might have answered your own question by extrapolating the relevance.

Did you watch the clips?
In the first, which is what started the conversation, she speaks of not marrying 'poor' men the opposite of which, by deduction, is to seek riches, ergo the question of materialism. This has been an ongoing debate in churches and temples in affluent / industrial societies.

In the 2nd clip, which I came across later, she advocates for seeking 'good' men with 'akhlaq', with which I agree, and applaud her for. In discourse, one tries to look at the whole spectrum, where available.

 

[Journey.]

In the first, which is what started the conversation, she speaks of not marrying 'poor' men the opposite of which, by deduction, is to seek riches, ergo the question of materialism.

If someone advices a woman to marry a man who can provide for her, i.e., he is not impoverished and unable to cover her basic needs, is that person being materialistic?

 

[Angelina]

@𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈

Please read the real Islamic position.

I also have another question that Islamweb touches upon, why does the Prophet s.a.w give a general advise for young men who can’t afford to marry to not marry and fast and wait?

I think what’s frustrating about this topic is that ones of the biggest rights I wife has in Islam is provision. Yet Somalis are raising their sons and coming up with fake hadiths about marrying and marrying without a dime and I know you heard that story from a Somali odey.

@𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈​

I have another question, since you want to conflate not marrying very poor means marry rich, when the Prophet s.a.w advised the general masses of poor men to fast, are you going to interpret as him saying they should only marry when they have a lot of money?! Of course not!

We don’t just have the Hadith of Fatima bin Quas which we can acknowledge was only a case by case basis, but we also have a general Hadith that advises ALL men to fast if they cannot afford marriage!

 

[Angelina]

If someone advices a woman to marry a man who can provide for her, i.e., he is not impoverished and unable to cover her basic needs, is that person being materialistic?

I mean the brother has been fed fake hadith in which the Prophet s.a.w advised very poor men who were already married to marry an additional wife.

Deffo sounds like something a wayward Somali odey made up so it makes complete sense why our dear brother here would conflate any form of rationality with regards to provision and the importance of it.

 

[Journey.]

I think what’s frustrating about this topic is that ones of the biggest rights I wife has in Islam is provision. Yet Somalis are raising their sons and coming up with fake hadiths about marrying and marrying without a dime and I know you heard that story from a Somali odey.

Yes, from what I can see this Eedo is just telling women to marry men who can fulfil her rights. It shouldn't be controversial. I don't think a man/Shaykh advising brothers to marry homely women who take on household duties would cause this much controversy despite the fact that this is not one of their rights according to the majority of scholars.

I mean the brother has been fed fake hadith in which the Prophet s.a.w advised very poor men who were already married to marry an additional wife.

Deffo sounds like something a wayward Somali odey made up so it makes complete sense why our dear brother here would conflate any form of rationality with regards to provision and the importance of it.

These odays need to be stopped

 

[Angelina]

Yes, from what I can see this Eedo is just telling women to marry men who can fulfil her rights. It shouldn't be controversial. I don't think a man/Shaykh advising brothers to marry homely women who take on household duties would cause this much controversy despite the fact that this is not one of their rights according to the majority of scholars.



These odays need to be stopped

It actually wouldn’t. In fact a woman that objects would be branded a feminist. I think the double standards and a narrative that only benefits men has been culturally pushed. It is what it is, ultimately humans are self-serving and I don’t expect men to behave any differently unfortunately, but what I find disappointing is that many of our women back home don’t have the intelligence to understand this and will put the wants and needs of men above their own and on top of that will shit on women who think differently. That’s why you have characters like Daaci who has amassed thousands of followers for saying she’ll be with a poor man and that Muna is wrong. Now men are pitting women and Daaci believes she’s won as now she has the attention of adoring men who love that she’s ok with the very bare minimum. But the gag is, everyday women who think like Muna exist and they’re the ones on social media always crying about how a man did them dirty financially and left them. It’s very common for fob women to cry on social media and it’s to the point I now hate fob side of TikTok. They’re the most pick me women on the face of the planet but complain the most about being done dirty.

 

[Journey.]

It actually wouldn’t. In fact a woman that objects would be branded a feminist. I think the double standards and a narrative that only benefits men has been culturally pushed. It is what it is, ultimately humans are self-serving and I don’t expect men to behave any differently unfortunately, but what I find disappointing is that many of our women back home don’t have the intelligence to understand this and will put the wants and needs of men above their own and on top of that will shit on women who think differently. That’s why you have characters like Daaci who has amassed thousands of followers for saying she’ll be with a poor man and that Muna is wrong. Now men are pitting women and Daaci believes she’s won as now she has the attention of adoring men who love that she’s ok with the very bare minimum. But the gag is, everyday women who think like Muna exist and they’re the ones on social media always crying about how a man did them dirty financially and left them. It’s very common for fob women to cry on social media and it’s to the point I now hate fob side of TikTok. They’re the most pick me women on the face of the planet but complain the most about being done dirty.

Some brothers have said there is nothing wrong with what she is saying just the delivery. But it looks like Eedo Muna is tired of the dysfunction she is seeing all around her and may be why she speaks so passionately about this. She probably also deals with a fair share of sisters who bring their problems to her crying and decided to stand up and do something about it.