THE EXPENDABLE WIFE
This partial rebuttal to the article 'The Expendable Wife' is from Ken Singh
(who also goes by the name Pritam Singh Khalsa from Sacramento,
California), a convert to Sikhism from an
equally contradictory religion - Christianity.
Comments from our article 'The Expendable Wife' -
italics
Ken Singh's response -
bold
Our reply -
blue
"Women are the twin halves of men." (Ibn Asaakir)
Why arent they allowed to be seated on the womens parallel half? Or
sometimes not even allowed in? why do they have seperate doors to
enter? Men should be able to control sexual desires and not be looking
at the women sexually at worship places.
The
answers to questions one and three can be found in the following article
entitled: Blind Equality:
http://www.islam-sikhism.info/fem/equal01.htm
As
for your suggestion that women are not allowed into the mosque, this is
incorrect.
As Muslims, the correct understanding, interpretation and implementation
of this religion is turning back to the earliest and best of generations
- the first one. Any aberration from them is considered false.
We know that the Prophet Muhammad (blessings of Allaah be upon him)
clearly allowed women the openness to attend the mosque with certain
conditions:
"When
your womenfolk ask you for permission to go to the mosque, give them
permission." According to another version, "Do not forbid women
their share of the mosques if they ask you for permission." Bilaal,
a son of 'Abdullaah ibn 'Umar, said: "By Allaah, we will stop them."
'Abdullaah said to him: "I say 'The Messenger of Allaah said...' and
you say, 'We will stop them'!" (Muslim)
During the two festivals of 'Eid the Prophet commanded the women to do
the following:
Umm 'Atiyyah
said: "We were commanded to go out on the day of Eid, even
to bring out the virgins from their seclusion and the menstruating
women, who would be behind the people, joining in their takbeer and
du'aa's, sharing the blessings of this day." (Al-Bukhaari 918)
It is
apparent from the above that if a woman wishes to attend the mosque she
cannot be forbidden. Any Muslim man who stops his wife from attending
the mosque without a prescribed shari' (legislative) reason is
going against the teaching of his Prophet.
As for
your suggestion that men control their sexual desires and not look at
women, then this is an admirable suggestion and one which god-conscious
Muslims will practice. However, Islaam is a religion of the real world;
as such, it attempts to completely minimise the threat of free-mixing,
which inevitably leads to sexual thoughts, by cutting off all avenues
that may lead to this. We elaborated on the setup of the mosque and the
wisdom behind it in the article 'Blind Equality':
A
visual division or barrier is setup between the two sexes. Usually,
arrangements are made for separate entrances for the male and female
ensuring that no free-mixing occurs. The wisdom behind this, as
explained above, is the recognition of sexual temptation posed by each
gender towards the other. Hence, not only is there a prescribed
purpose-made dress code, but an additional safety precaution is
established by cordoning off the two sexes to ensure that all potential
avenues of temptation are cut off; thus, allowing for complete and
undisturbed attention to be paid towards the purpose of attending the
mosque - to worship the Creator.
However, in their naivety, Sikhs often forward the excuse that it is
impossible for temptation to arise in a place of worship, or during
worship, and in front of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The need of
an outward show of equality, i.e. men and women sitting in the same room
equal-distant from their Holy Book, supersedes the need to protect the
natural temptation that will inevitably arise between men and women
situated in the same locale.
Who would have tended
to her sexual needs during those 12 years, let alone 28-years of
combined travel?
You dont need to have sex all the time to be happy.What do widows do
after there beloved husband dies? Some dont have sex ever again ,a.e. my
grandma.
The
point is not simply about sex and happiness, but something more profound
and deeper. Marriage is about mutuality, shared responsibilities and
upholding the rights of the spouse to the best of one's ability.
Thankfully, since you acknowledge that Sulakhni ji had the desire for
companionship and intimacy, then her desire to be satisfied would also
have existed during those first 12-years when her husband seemingly
abandoned her to fend for herself and her children.
Our point of contention is that Nanak, being the paragon of virtue and
role-model for Sikhs to emulate, has set a precedent for you to follow
for all times, and this main point is what you have conveniently
side-stepped in this entire rebuttal.
"As a man, he was sensitive, kind-hearted, but never sentimental. He
was fair and correct.
Love of his parents, his sister, his wife, or his children did not
prevent him from undertaking long travels, at times lasting several
years."
He then named his son Siri Baba Chand and put him in charge of the order
called "Udasis" Then his son took over his travels,his son need to learn
before he could travel and teach.He learned alot from his mother along
with Guru Nanak.
Alas, you give no justification from the point of view of upholding the
rights of his wife. Neither do you bother to explain how this would be a
good example for other Sikhs to witness and emulate.
A father who is there constantly to educate and tend to his family's
need is better than the one who spends decades away.
We know that Guru Nanak tested his two sons
Sri
Chand and Lakhmi Chand to see if they were worthy successors. However,
they failed the test; it is said "Lakhmi Chand was too involved in
worldly affairs while Baba Sri Chand chose the path of renunciation and
became an aesthetic [sic - ascetic]".
Perhaps if Nanak was there during those wasted years, especially the
early years, then he could have taught them better so as to prevent them
from going to the extremes in life they chose.
How would the
children have felt seeing their role-model leave them for years on end
Honored by
being named Siri Baba Chand.
Perhaps a consolation prize for being told that they were not worthy
enough to succeed their father. Little wonder Sri Baba Chand left on his
ascetic travels to establish himself as the founder of a new movement
known as the Udhasi Order.
"jaa ddithaa pooraa sathiguroo thaan andharahu man saadhhaariaa
When I see the Perfect True Guru, then deep within, my mind is comforted
and consoled." (SGGS 310)
So Guru Nanak needed to teach this, nobody would walk for years to know
this cause they didnt know about it so GuruJi had to put comfort in the
children of Waheguru.
As we
have stated above: teach this at the expense of teaching his own two
sons!
"Whatever you spend on your family, you will be rewarded for it, even
the mouthful which you lift up and place in your wife's mouth." (Al-Bukhaari
and Muslim)
In order to lift that morsel of food to the wife's mouth, one must
firstly be present in her company.
Then for four months Muslims dont abide by this.
Where does it say that Muslims can choose to have sexual relations with
their wife once every four months? Indeed, this is a strange conclusion
you have drawn from this protective law. We provided many ahadeeth of
the Prophet stipulating the kind, fair and just treatment of the wife in
the following link:
http://www.islam-sikhism.info/fem/wife01.htm
From the example of the Prophet, we do not find him treating his wives
with such disrespect. He was fair and just in his dealings with them.
Hence, a Muslim by taking him as a role-model would not do that which
you have suggested above.
The above law provides the wife with the means of protection from
falling into committing adultery due to the neglect and abuse from her
husband.
Unfortunately, the same protective law will never be found in Sikhism,
nor can the same be said of the Sikhs since their role-model has made it
is permissible for husbands to leave their wives for years on end. His
own son set off to meander and gallivant across the Indian subcontinent
- like father like son, as they say.
We here at Islam-Sikhism know of real life examples within the Sikh
community today where fathers, who have taken the path of the Udhasi
proselytising way of life, have subsequently been away from their family
for long periods of time neglecting their children. And you sir seem to
be all for this behaviour since you are defending your Guru's choice of
actions tooth and nail.
WIFE MUST BE SEXUALLY
SATISIFIED. Not raped when the city of enemies are plundered and
ransacked
We
have no idea from which sky this red-herring dropped out from!
He prescribed a maximum time limit for a man neglecting this right
without a legitimate legislative reason, and that is - 4 months.
So you can bend the rules be leaving for 4 months come back a day and
leave again for 4 months. What if your job makes you travel and your
wife cant go because youll only see her 5 min a day?Then have sex with
her for 5 min. Is that all you would take her for?
It is
sad to see people forwarding such absurd scenarios to desperately defend
actions committed by their religious founder, which were patently
unjust.
Be that as it may, we must firstly understand that in Islaam, the edicts
are there to cater for the majority, not the minority. In other words,
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few. The
above situation would be one where the rights of the wife are clearly
being violated since it is understood that a husband must be sympathetic
towards his wife's needs and fulfil them.
The
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in a
general statement:
"Love
for your brother what you love for yourself."
"You do not have faith until you love for your brother what you love
for your self."
From
these well known hadeeth a principle arises that a Muslim must want for
his/her brother/sister what s/he would want for him/her self. A husband
would not have complete faith (eemaan) if he did not love for his
wife what he would love and want for himself, providing it is
permissible to begin with. Moreover, this would not be kind treatment
towards the wife due to the many hadeeth we forwarded in the article
entitled:
The Expendable Wife, where the Prophet castigated the
companion who forsook his wife by praying the whole night and fasting
the whole day. The wife complained to the Prophet, who subsequently
corrected his behaviour explaining that he should pray on some nights
and not pray on others and he should fast on some days and not fast on
other days, pointing to himself as the example of this:
"The
wife of 'Uthman ibn Madh'oon complained to the Messenger of Allaah that
her husband had no need for women. During the days he would fast and at
night he would pray. The Prophet asked him: "Am I not the best example
for you to follow?" He answered: "Certainly, may my father and mother be
sacrificed for you." The Prophet then told him: "As for you, you pray
during the night and you fast during the day. Certainly, your wife
has a right upon you and your body has a right upon you so pray
and sleep and fast and break your fast." (Saheeh Ibn Hibban)
If the period exceeds four months, the woman must ask her husband for
sex or divorce, otherwise the judge will urge him to do so in order not
to harm her.
If the women is a whore all she will think of is sex. Having sex doesnt
make a relationship,[prem] love between the two does.
Again
you are missing the point. In the Islamic religion, marriage has many
benefits, some more important than others, but all are complimentary. An
important part of the marriage is the satisfaction of the inherent
nature established by Allaah, which is to be attracted towards the
opposite sex, to cohabit and find intimacy and companionship in a
legislatively prescribed relationship. If this nature is suppressed or
neglected then a person will tend towards extremes; and although it is
appreciated that some will not, the reality is that the majority will
fall into committing illicit sexual acts as a result. This is what
Islaam has come to close the doors on, but this is what Sikhism, due to
its imperfect man-invented origin, has opened the doors to.
In Islaam it is impermissible for the fasting person to partake in
certain designated actions since these would break the fast.
Not eating doesnt mean you love God or not. What about Buddist monk who
go days without eating? Does he love more than the rest of us?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
According to the biographies of Nanak, agreement exists amongst Sikhs
that Guru Nanak during his life set out on long proselytising journeys (udhasis).
According to Patwant Singh, these journeys were necessary in order for
Nanak to "crystallize GODS
ideas and give sharper definition to the contours" of his GOD
DEVELOPED religion.
His
wife understood this and allowed him to go knowing his purpose on earth.
Again
you have missed our main point. Our contention is not whether she
agreed, our contention is that this action as a general rule is unjust
and makes a mockery of marriage. It is an action that will generate
greater harm than good, if any, and it is an action that the vast
majority of dignified and honourable women will reject as inhumane and a
violation of their rights.
We as conscientious and noble human beings should condemn these types of
examples and not defend them from prejudice, bigotry and a bias
mind-set. We should recognise this as it is: an evil and unjust action.
"The third time Guru Nanak left home, he trekked towards the North.
Penetrating the Himalayas, he went up to Tibet. He was accompanied by
Mardana."
Mardana was a Muslim
who saw the Light {jot} in Guru Nanak and wanted to accompany GuruJi on
his travels.He also went on the first trip.
If this is true, then we condemn Mardana and censure his choice of
companions purely from an Islamic perspective for staying silent in the
midst of falsehood. If Mardana interpreted Nanak's actions as
permissible and sanctioned by Allaah, then he was an extremely ignorant
and deviated Muslim who did not have fundamental knowledge of Islaam as
practiced by his Prophet and his righteous companions.
If one has knowledge of the edicts of Islaam, but remains silent in the
presence of falsehood and evil actions, then one is deficient in one's
faith, has committed a sin, and is subject to the punishment of Allaah.
The reason for this is that Allaah has said:
"Those
among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the tongue
of David and Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed (Allaah
and the Messengers) and were ever transgressing beyond bounds.
They never used to forbid one another from the evil which they
committed. Vile indeed was what they used to do."
(Qur'an 5:78-9)
The
Prophet Muhammad (Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) said:
"Whoever
sees an evil, he should change it by his hands; if he could not do so,
then he should change it by his tongue; if he could not do so, then he
should do that by his heart (to hate it), which is the least of faith."
(Muslim)
In
other words, these proofs do not allow the Muslim to remain idle and
incapacitated when witnessing injustices while he is able to change
them.
At Mecca the head
priest saw Guru Nanaks miracle and understood his God given power of
truth.
Not
only is this irrelevant and proves nothing, but we would also seriously
dispute the veracity of this mythical tale.
Sat Nam Waheguru/Allah/God/Nirankar/etc.
Waheguru Ji ka Khalsa
Waheguru Ji ki fateh!
ALLAAH YAHDEEKA
BACK TO TOP
| 
