According to Family Law, the man has the obligation to financially care for his family: the man as the breadwinner. He is obliged to provide for all the family expenses and must conduct his affairs in keeping with the nature of his assets. For example, a wealthy husband cannot order expensive tailored suits for himself and buy only cheap off-the-rack clothing for his wife and children:

A woman may choose to be a housewife.
















As a mother, her tasks are very highly respected:
A man approached the Prophet Mohamed and asked him: O Messenger of Allah, who amongst people is most worthy of my companionship? The Prophet said : your mother. The man then said: and who after her? The Prophet said: your mother. The man asked further, inquiring who came next? Only then did the Prophet say: your father. (Bukhari)

The husband is made responsible for everything, the woman for nothing. This is valid in financial matters as well as for what pertains to decisions to be taken with regards to family matters, both concerning the children and the wife herself. The man decides whom his daughters may wed and whether to allow his wife to leave the house.

At least, if her husband gives his permission for her to do all of those things. Verse 4.34 does state that a wife must obey her husband. A man can, for instance, forbid his wife to go to work when he fears that, because of her employment, she will no longer be capable of fulfilling her ‘marital duties’.


And, we should add, on condition that her husband allows her to leave the house.

The Quran states, in effect, that it is preferable that the wife stay at home unless for a good reason not to. Working and earning is not included in that. This is the exclusive obligation of the husband.

An added difficulty for our esteemed muslim sister engaged in business is that she may never be alone with a man, for instance for a meeting or an interview, and that a male family member must always accompany her when she goes on a business trip. This is established in the following Hadith of Bukhari 4.52. 250:

If the husband is afraid of his wife’s coming in contact with other men, he can simply compel her to stay home.

My dear Linda, is the wife then without obligations towards her husband? Do you consider the Islamic system just where the wife can do what she wants while her husband works his fingers to the bone? This has really nothing to do with justice, does it?

This quoted verse clearly shows us that men are superior/privileged vis-à-vis women and for that reason they have to take care of them. Are women incapable of doing that? I personally am strongly inclined to think the opposite!



All of this is obviously pure twaddle. There are as many debates about the Arabic original Quran as there are about the translations. This simply is the case because the Quran has been “revealed” on the occasion of specific events. If one doesn’t know those events, one cannot understand the Quran, be it in Arabic or English or in whatever language. The Arabic version is itself open to interpretation and elucidation.

‘Qawwammoena’ is never translated as “business managers”, but general as “guardians” or some other term bearing that kind of connotation, e.g., maintainers.





The reverse side of the coin is that a woman ‘must’ always obey a man from the family, be it her husband, father, brother, and that, with the exception for what concerns the management of her personal assets, she has no voice in family affairs. In the end, the man assumes ultimate responsibility for everything and, under Islamic Law, he receives the resources to do so. In nearly all Islamic countries, to get married, a woman needs the consent of one of the male members of her family (even if she is already 80) or to travel (passport, exit-visa, ...). But this surely makes sense! If a woman were simply and without much ado permitted to get married or to go on a trip, how can one expect a man to acquit himself properly of his obligations?

Linda, what are we to think now? Is the man privileged or not, yes or no? Following your train of thought as expounded above, to you, the answer is Yes! Is marriage a commitment between equals?? Again according to you, clearly not.

What then is the relevance of your statement that all of this pertains solely to the obligation to provide care? What aspects are you thinking of in the relationship between man and woman other than this particular “obligation”?

Of course the man is privileged. End of discussion. Allah has created him superior to the woman so that he can look after his family. Except in the case of Khadidja, since it was she who was actually looking after Muhammad.


This is all quite logical in terms of a quid pro quo!










Does the fact that the woman must obey her husband – but not the reverse – not point to a position of superiority or dominance?


Eventually having to share things amongst four wives, each one with a number of kids.







The Hadith quoted to prove that, if a man is stingy with his money, his wife is permitted to lay her hands on it, is, once again, misleading. It is, in fact, not about ‘being stingy’ but about ‘not giving enough’. Presumably this includes food, drinks, or clothing. This can objectively be observed: the children are hungry, thirsty, and cold; their clothes resemble rags ... For that reason, Islamic Law prescribes to how much food, drinks, and clothing a wife is legally entitled, as stated in this shariah handbook in Chapter m11 on p 542 to 545. In the 21st century this is clearly ridiculous. According to the rules set down there, you can provide for a wife for 100 Euro per month if you don’t allow her outside the house.

As is her habit, Linda gives her own misleading explanation on the matter in order to prove ... whatever she wants to prove.

One of the major inequalities between the rights accorded to husbands and wives is that the man need not offer a reason for divorcing his wife or for replacing one wife with another (quite pathetic!) according to Quran verse 4.20:

Without apparently being aware of it, Linda makes it clear that a wife must have a good reason for getting a divorce, and she cites one such reason, namely when the husband stops feeding his wife or children.

The wife need neither take responsibility for the family’s income nor for the household, yet Linda blatantly presents the Islamic marriage as “a commitment between equals”.
This is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. The man truly has to do everything. Now we can only wait for demonstrations and protests in the Islamic world by men that are claiming their rights. It is not surprising that in the Western world it is especially women that convert to Islam and not men. These ladies know better.

What then is the woman supposed to do? Linda leaves us in the dark. Also throughout the remainder of her expositions will she keep everything close to the vest.





End of Part 4