-
Two Heads Of Household
I don’t understand why there has to be one person held responsible for financial situations in a marriage. Surely both the husband and wife can be held responsible. This not only increases the chance of getting out of the issue but also fosters a more loving relation between the two. Can’t the ayah of الرجال قوامون على النساء be taken as an advice for the tribal setting of that day and age?
-
25 Replies
-
Two Heads Of Household
updated 3 years ago
5 Members
·
25
Replies
-
This question was already answered here:
-
How would this responsibility on the husband be held to account? Also- the dynamics of a marriage nowadays are such that the responsibility can be shared.
It doesn’t seem appropriate to call it an institution either
-
-
We are free to devise and enforce laws to uphold such responsibility.
Just because it “can be” shared doesn’t mean that it is how God wants it to be.
It seems perfectly fine to me to call it an institution. In fact I can’t come up with any better word.
-
Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the concept of marriage has changed since 1400 years ago and that God’s revealed instructions about a social construct like marriage for those times would be different today?
-
In order for that to even be a thought, first we would have to establish that the purpose of marriage has substantially changed across humanity in the last 1400 years. In my knowledge, that’s not the case. The crux of marriage is, and always has been to satisfy the inherent human need of extending his/her progeny.
-
The end to that purpose has changed though.
First it was the man brings money and the wife looks after the children. Perhaps there was less time for that intimate relationship. The father would be perhaps more distant.
Nowadays the relationship, even if it is to bring the next generation has a purpose that has been made more significant than it was before. The companionship of a life long partner is a lot more important than it was before. And having a ‘head’ is not conducive to that purpose at all
-
Your first point has no bearing on the purpose of marriage.
The second point is an unsubstantiated claim. Humans have an innate desire to extend their progeny, and they have always had it. This is God’s way of sending new humans to the world in order to test them. The natural physical attraction between men and women is an evidence to this fact. Companionship and other things are important, but they’re not the purpose.
-
Surely that depends on situations. And also it is almost definitely parallel purpose to have companionship in this day and age
-
And it wasn’t 1400 years ago?
-
Well if there is one half with a companionship and one half that has the right to discipline another then it doesn’t seem as though this is the same companionship that is sought after today
-
I understand. But the laws of God should not be taken lightly on the basis of what seems and what feels. If our approach is to understand the purpose and the wisdom behind these laws in the context of the purpose of this universe, then I am confident that there exists no better way to carry them out. If one desires to challenge any of these laws, he/she must be ready to substantiate their proposition on the basis of very strong evidence.
-
What is the evidence that الرجال قوامون على النساء is prescriptive rather than descriptive and that it’s an eternal commandment? Especially when it’s related to a social construct like marriage which has changed
-
That’s a separate topic that has already been discussed on this forum in a lot of detail. To sum it up, the words of the Quran are very clear and there’s no reason to give them any other meaning.
I think that I have established here that the social construct of marriage has not changed. The way I see it, it can never change as long as the purpose of marriage doesn’t change.
-
But surely this is a clear evidence of it changing. The dynamics used to be (and in some third world countries still are) the wives being submissive and the husbands being usually controlling and unsympathetic. I’m not sure about the Arabs but nowadays the relationship would not last at all if the husband was not kind. If it lasted in the past with these sorts of disciplinary actions then that simply means that the construct of marriage in this day and age has shifted. The husband is not considered the ‘head’ anymore and the wife (at least in western countries) in given equal weight in ideas and contributions.Could you give some links to where the description can prescription has been discussed since I can’t recall discussing that specifically
-
-
Kindness is required by every Muslim. A husband who is unkind has nothing to do with this topic.
There can only be a single person made the head of the household – without such an arrangement a marriage can end up in a deadlock with divorce being the only way out. In God’s law this status has been granted to the man, along with financial responsibility for the household. The woman is asked to maintain a cooperative behavior with her husband.
If a man or the woman do not like this arrangement, they’re free to stipulate conditions of nikah before marriage.
The entire concept is simple, effective, and the most fair.
-
Shoaib. Here is my take on this. What is written in Quran on this subject is an advice. If you go against the advice, there are no penalties, but then you are responsible for consequences in this World. Would someone want to spend the entire life and test it out and at the end find out he/she was wrong?
I have gone against Allah’s advice a few times and learned the hard way, but it is too late to correct the damages. Fortunately, Allah gave me a second chance and now I follow his guidance without trying to be smart and the whole family is very happy and doing well.
Allah created human and knowing the psychology of each gender, Allah has given the best advice. I have observed many families with both types of arrangements. As much as I know the inner workings of those families, the ones not following Allah’s guidance are mostly, not always, miserable. The family tears apart and children are not raised well.
There has to be one leader and one decision maker and one who is willing to share the earned money with family. I have found men to be the best suited for this job…mostly. Here decision maker doesn’t mean dictatorship, but the one who consults everyone, takes into account all aspects of the family, but makes the final decision.
-
Similar question was asked in recent Ask Ghamidi Live
https://youtu.be/RKCOvg5F_Z4?t=3284-
I agree that an institution needs a head. It is simple as that. However, the confusion that I still have is regarding this an “Institution”.
Why, but why and how this is being regarded an institution? What are the reasonings backing this statement? I am unable to comprehend this.
As @faisalharoon sahb said that the purpose of marriage is to extend progeny. If you think of it solely for that, then sure it sounds like building an institution. However, this is not THE ONLY purpose of marriage. Having a sense of attraction towards opposite gender does not (necessarily) mean that they want to extend their progeny; it simply means that they like each other and want to spend time together. They don’t necessarily have to extend their progeny. Like, there are some who don’t even want to have kids but they still feel attracted towards opposite gender AND want to get married. How’d that setting be an institution then?
-
If you analyze human psychology and behavior at a deeper level, the most fundamental motivation underneath our attraction towards the opposite gender is our innate need to extend our progeny. Of course, there can be exceptions, but laws are never based on exceptions.
-
@faisalharoon sahb, I’d have agreed to this a few decades ago but considering the significant percentage of the LGBTQ community, I doubt this is in effect anymore as the percentage of people who have strong attraction towards same gender or both genders could be very significant and may not be considered an exception anymore. And even the most underneath reason of THIS kind of attraction can not be an innate need to extend progeny.
-
Same gender attraction is a separate issue, and it still falls under exceptions. The percentage of people who are completely homosexual is generally not more than just a couple of percent.
-
-
Brother Muhammad. I think marriage is an institution. Also many LGBT adopt children because they feel the need. Many who marry not wanting children end up changing mind and having children later or regret not having when it is too late.
Ignoring religion, why get married if attraction is the only reason? Even for having children there is no reason for marriage. The only reason I see for marriage is to have family and raise children well.
Let’s say two people just decide to live together. Even then, it becomes an institution. One person starts leading at some level. I have never seen a family with two equally decisive and strong people. It doesn’t last.
-
I agree that once the children are involved, it becomes an institution as the children need upbringing, teachings, learning, etc. However, for the case where the children are not involved in that case regarding it an institution is incomprehensible to me but I guess as Faisal Haroon shb directed, it might be falling in to the exception category.
-
-
My bigger question is if family is to raise children well, why physical relationship is prohibitted between unmarried people without any children. I will post question on this separately.
-
If I remember correctly, Ghamidi sahb answered it as below (the main crux of his answer):
The actually prohibition is for the married persons as the institution of marriage is necessary to raise children otherwise their life would be a chaos. But once this interaction out of wedlock has been started, It then becomes the habit of a person and this continues even when a person gets married. It becomes impossible to limit the interaction between you and your spouse only. Hence, to avoid that stage happening, as a “Sad-e-zariya”, this has been prohibited before the marriage as well.
I’d add here the analogy of intoxication which is the actual prohibition however, once you start taking it even just as a drink/soda, you’d eventually end up being in that stage of prohibition. Lastly, exceptions are there but as Faisal shb said, rules aren’t built on exceptions.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
The discussion "Two Heads Of Household" is closed to new replies.
